The Murder Of Laci Peterson - General Discussion

[formerlyfreedom]

Quote

A re-examination of the highly publicized murder case includes new interviews with death-row prisoner Scott Peterson, who was convicted of murdering his pregnant wife in 2002.

Debuts on A&E on Tuesday, August 15, 2017

[iMonrey]

OMG this has actually gotten hilarious. Last night the Peterson family was trying to spin the whole story about Scott being on the border with 10,000 dollars in cash. They said someone named Jackie (his mother?) accidentally withdrew 10K and then paid him back in cash. Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaattttttttttt??????????????? How can you "accidentally" withdraw $10,000? It's not like you can go to an ATM and punch in $100 and it accidentally spits out 10K. This is ridiculous! Has this family actually convinced themselves this can be true? They're just as in denial as Scott! I also love how they think "he was going to play golf" actually makes him look better, considering this is the day they identified the remains of his wife and baby. 

This "limited series" has become unintentionally parody.

[LadyArcadia]

55 minutes ago, iMonrey said:

OMG this has actually gotten hilarious. Last night the Peterson family was trying to spin the whole story about Scott being on the border with 10,000 dollars in cash. They said someone named Jackie (his mother?) accidentally withdrew 10K and then paid him back in cash. Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaattttttttttt??????????????? How can you "accidentally" withdraw $10,000? It's not like you can go to an ATM and punch in $100 and it accidentally spits out 10K. This is ridiculous! Has this family actually convinced themselves this can be true? They're just as in denial as Scott! I also love how they think "he was going to play golf" actually makes him look better, considering this is the day they identified the remains of his wife and baby. 

This "limited series" has become unintentionally parody.

Hahaha!  I know, right?  Not only did they claim Jackie "accidentally" withdrew 10k, but she accidentally withdrew it and "accidentally" gave it to Scott to hold for her.  What???  As if having an extra 10k lying around is a normal occurrence.

And the golf thing. They made up a narrative that didn't exist.  They had already established that Scott did not intend to play golf.  He said no. He did not change his mind and was leisurely driving to the golf course. He was being chased and went to where his family was for protection. Granted, it does lead me to question why he didn't go south to the border if he was truly running away.  But, come on now.  He wasn't there to play golf, he'd already said no.

The only thing they might have convinced me of is the reason for the dyed hair.  I can buy that he wanted anonymity.  I can also buy that he was trying to flee. 

I found the interviews intriguing.  I'd forgotten how badly he was caught in lies. Laci knew about the affair and was ok with it?  He told the police that very day?

I don't know the purpose for this series, but if it's Scott's family doing it, they really aren't doing themselves any favors.

[cuppasun]

Yeah, last night's episode pretty much dropped any thin pretense that this series is about anything other than "Scott Peterson is really innocent and was railroaded!" There's almost no attention or details regarding the actual case built against him; the rhetoric is that somehow, the voracious press, and the press alone, influenced and maybe even controlled the police and prosecutors, who were only going along to feed the frenzy. There was one moment where someone (that woman reporter who was on the 'inside' maybe?) was talking about the response to finding Laci's body as a high-five moment because oh boy, now we don't have to prosecute a "no body" trial, woo-hoo! All I could think was, hmmmm...or maybe there was grim relief that, I don't know, a murdered woman and her child's bodies were found? Because those victims deserve some kind of justice?

Thing is, I'm not ever opposed to reevaluating my views on something in the face of compelling evidence that changes things. That's science; that's the way things should work. But the major "evidence" being presented here as "compelling" is almost exclusively eyewitness statements collected by a P.I. well after the fact. The one from the marina was preposterous--the guy acknowledges he didn't see the person's face, but remembers a jacket and that he "looked into the boat" from the pier? Not likely. It's well-established by now that eyewitness testimony is among the least reliable forms of evidence available. Like it or not, we humans don't have memories as good as we think we do--and more importantly, memory is often overlaid with elements that find their way in from elsewhere and come to seem a concrete part of the memory, even when it's not. In this case, there's no possible way anyone not living under a rock, especially in the Bay Area, wasn't bombarded with the news, conjecture, images and info connected to the case, and that can easily cause conflation or inaccurate memories. Hell, it's downright common to mistake when a remembered event took place, especially if the event wasn't important at the time, but becomes connected in the mind to something that's become important later. (Yeah, I read a lot of cognitive science books. I'm all into that stuff.)

I lived in Oakland when all this was happening, and like everyone else, followed the story avidly. This show, so far, has done nothing to convince me there's a credible case that anyone other than Scott committed the murder(s). Sadly, it's a textbook thing, not at all uncommon in situations like Scott and Laci's. I'm no fan of Nancy Grace's antics, and think she's just as bad for figuring out the facts as the defense folks (or maybe worse), but it's not her ranting that ever swayed me then, or now. I wish she wasn't being used as the representative voice of Scott's guilt--though it's pretty clear why they're doing that. It makes the "innocence project" parts sound much more reasonable by comparison.

I can grasp why something like this would be devastating for the family members of the murderer, and why they want desperately to believe it's not him. That's a sympathetic place to be. But feelings about your loved ones, no matter how tragic or genuine, are not evidence, and the litany of "I just know because I love him and he could never!" doesn't help in persuading the audience (or, well, this audience right here, anyway). It's frustrating. At this point, I'll stick with: the jury saw lots of evidence, that evidence was compelling enough for them to convict, and absent any real, physical, provable evidence to the contrary, there's no reason to think a mistake has been made.

The whole thing does make me flinch on behalf of Laci's family, though. I sure wouldn't want to be them witnessing this right now. Yuck.

[cpcathy]

I kept getting the sinking feeling that the show was supposed to make Scott appear innocent, I kept yelling at the TV! Huh? I'll have to delete last night's episode, I don't believe for a millisecond that he didn't do it. Unless Nicole Simpson and Laci Peterson's murderers are laughing up a storm somewhere.

[Spartan Girl]

Glad I'm not the only one calling bullshit on the alternative facts theories.

Any sympathy I might have had for the Peterson family is gone, and I had very little to begin with. How can they explain how Scott was using Connor's room as a storage room? Or him throwing away the sonogram picture?! Willful blindness at its lowest.

[iMonrey]

Quote

I can grasp why something like this would be devastating for the family members of the murderer, and why they want desperately to believe it's not him. That's a sympathetic place to be. But feelings about your loved ones, no matter how tragic or genuine, are not evidence, and the litany of "I just know because I love him and he could never!" doesn't help in persuading the audience (or, well, this audience right here, anyway).

Their excuses for his behavior are even worse than that. The excuse about the $10,000 in his car was downright laughable. And they keep repeating the same mantra that the media just latched onto Scott once they found out about the mistress. Well, duh! Like everyone should have simply dismissed Amber Frey as irrelevant. Just because the police and the media zeroed in on Scott doesn't mean he's not guilty. There were compelling reasons they focused on him. The family can't even make a case that those reasons weren't compelling. It's kind of pathetic. If it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck . . .  but oh, no, they never looked at the hummingbirds. 

[Lovecat]

22 hours ago, cuppasun said:

There was one moment where someone (that woman reporter who was on the 'inside' maybe?) was talking about the response to finding Laci's body as a high-five moment because oh boy, now we don't have to prosecute a "no body" trial, woo-hoo!  All I could think was, hmmmm...or maybe there was grim relief that, I don't know, a murdered woman and her child's bodies were found? Because those victims deserve some kind of justice?

That reporter is entirely too gleeful about her "insider" status, IMHO.  90% of what she said had to do with *her*--how *she* felt to be the first one to get an interview, and how exciting it was to have the potential to be the one to crack the case!!!!! <--extreme exclamation points hers, not mine.  She didn't give a shit that a woman and her unborn baby were murdered; it was all about her career.  Gross.

[Carolyn Keene]

I agree with everyone else. It feels like A&E wanted to show that somehow, there were ambiguities and evidence of Scott's innocence that the cops overlooked, but all I'm taking away so far is that the case against Scott is 100% damning.

I actually lived in Modesto when all this was happening and followed the case closely. I thought I pretty much knew everything there is to know, but I was surprised learn something new from the first episode--that Scott and Laci had originally told people they weren't planning to have children. This was said as an aside by someone from Scott's family, like it was cute that Scott and Laci "changed their minds" about having kids . But to me, that only provides yet another piece of his motive. I don't believe for a moment that Laci was ever the type who would have chosen to remain childless. If she and Scott were telling people this early in their marriage, I bet it was something HE was pushing, and she was just going along with it to keep him happy.

His family's sharing that factoid only serves to make Scott look more guilty because it gives him an additional motive to be cold-hearted enough to kill his pregnant wife and their unborn child. He meant what they told people early in their marriage--he really never did want children, despite whatever act he may have put on during her pregnancy.

[cuppasun]

10 hours ago, Lovecat said:

That reporter is entirely too gleeful about her "insider" status, IMHO.  90% of what she said had to do with *her*--how *she* felt to be the first one to get an interview, and how exciting it was to have the potential to be the one to crack the case!!!!! <--extreme exclamation points hers, not mine.  She didn't give a shit that a woman and her unborn baby were murdered; it was all about her career.  Gross.

Yes, this. There was something from this last episode, I don't remember exactly, where she was saying that she knew something that was about to happen and wanting to be there with Scott when it did--his arrest, maybe?--and I found myself wondering if maybe she tipped him off, and that was part of why he tried to "run." It's not anything there's proof for, it just hit me that she had inside info, was clearly in his corner, and it didn't seem like the kind of thing she'd be above. She's rubbing me the wrong way, no doubt. I simply do not get her enthusiastic support for this guy.

I kind of feel like "The Murder of Laci Peterson" is a misleading title for this production. Would have been more honest to title it "The Innocence of Scott Peterson." It all feels very dismissive of Laci, as if she's just a set piece, not the central figure.

The one interesting thing that struck me was the juxtaposition of the Iraq invasion news with Laci's murder. I honestly hadn't remembered the fact that these were happening at the exact same time--it's so weird (and a little disconcerting!) to realize how much stronger my memory of the murder and its aftermath are than those huge world events. Local stuff really does make more impact, it seems.

[iMonrey]

Quote

That reporter is entirely too gleeful about her "insider" status, IMHO.  90% of what she said had to do with *her*--how *she* felt to be the first one to get an interview, and how exciting it was to have the potential to be the one to crack the case!!!!! <--extreme exclamation points hers, not mine.  She didn't give a shit that a woman and her unborn baby were murdered; it was all about her career. 

That's the whole point of this series, though. They're trying to show that the "corrupt" media railroaded Scott to service their own selfish agenda, ratings, and egos. They are deliberately cherry-picking who to show and listen to. A&E did the same thing with their JonBenet Ramsey special - they only showed people who were favorable to the Ramseys and anyone who accused them was presented as wicked and corrupt. 

The problem is that there's a much more believable case to be made that someone other than the Ramsey family murdered JonBenet, than there is that someone other than Scott Peterson murdered Laci. They can twist and manipulate and cherry pick all they want but when they start spouting nonsense like "he accidentally withdrew $10,000"  . . . game over, folks. You lost me.

[LadyArcadia]

On 8/31/2017 at 2:38 PM, Lovecat said:

That reporter is entirely too gleeful about her "insider" status, IMHO.  90% of what she said had to do with *her*--how *she* felt to be the first one to get an interview, and how exciting it was to have the potential to be the one to crack the case!!!!! <--extreme exclamation points hers, not mine.  She didn't give a shit that a woman and her unborn baby were murdered; it was all about her career.  Gross.

Even worse, that one dude commented on how hot she was. How is that relevant? The past recordings of her look like she was a pretty good reporter. The interviews now make her look like a vapid barbie doll.

[renatae]

On 08/30/2017 at 8:41 PM, Spartan Girl said:

Glad I'm not the only one calling bullshit on the alternative facts theories.

Any sympathy I might have had for the Peterson family is gone, and I had very little to begin with. How can they explain how Scott was using Connor's room as a storage room? Or him throwing away the sonogram picture?! Willful blindness at its lowest.

I have seen a lot of families of perps that I have a lot of sympathy for, especially those who evidence shock and sadness over the crime itself. But Scott's mom in particular never seemed to have empathy for Laci or her parents. She seems only concerned about Scott, and frankly, to me, she seems somewhat of a sociopath herself, stopping at nothing to gain her own ends. She seems like a very cold person. Not too surprised she produced an egotist like Scott.

Edited September 2, 2017 by renatae

[Spartan Girl]

Say what you want about Nancy Grace, but she was right on the money about Scott.

[WendyCR72]

This whole thing just seems like it's ripping open those wounds for Laci's family. And for what, ratings?! Because anything else just screams BS, to me. Especially Scott Peterson being innocent.

Right. Sure. No.

[Spartan Girl]

I couldn't even sit through this week's episode. Their so-called proof of Lacy using the computer to access her favorite websites is so flimsy. Just because it was her favorite website doesn't mean she was the one on the computer that morning; it was easily just a cover to make it look like she did. And that bitch sister saying "Oh Scott didn't know". Correction: he SAID the didn't know. Big difference.

Theyre trying to copy Making A Murderer and it's sickening.

[Arynm]

I find this show hilarious. Are they actually trying to convince me that Scott Peterson is innocent? If there was ever a guilty man, it's him. Total sociopath, she was in his way and he never looked back as he killed her and his unborn child. They were just garbage to him that needed to be gotten rid of.

The idea that he "accidentally" withdrew 10k is just laughable and the fact that his mom said she did it and "accidentally" gave it to him just shows how sick that entire family is.

[GHScorpiosRule]

I remember this case, and watched for any tidbits as they unfolded, because it angered and fascinated me ( minored in Criminal Justice in college). NO FUCKING WAY was that piece of offal ratbastard prick, Scott Peterson innocent. ?????Should I bother watching this, or will it just make me ragey and want to stab something????

And whoever slapped this together must think I'm an idiot, or that regular people are, because in order to withdraw $10K from a bank, one is REQUIRED by FEDERAL LAW, to fill out out a CTR* (Currency Transaction Report). ???And I'm not speaking out of my ass--I used to be a bank teller and handled these types of transactions on a daily basis.

*If memory serves, to determine it's not for criminal activities, like money laundering, etc.

Edited September 6, 2017 by GHScorpiosRule

[Spartan Girl]

2 hours ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

I remember this case, and watched for any tidbits as they unfolded, because it angered and fascinated me ( minored in Criminal Justice in college). NO FUCKING WAY was that piece of offal ratbastard prick, Scott Peterson innocent. ?????Should I bother watching this, or will it just make me ragey and want to stab something????

And whoever slapped this together must think I'm an idiot, or that regular people are, because in order to withdraw $10K from a bank, one is REQUIRED by FEDERAL LAW, to fill out out a CTR* (Currency Transaction Report). ???And I'm not speaking out of my ass--I used to be a bank teller and handled these types of transactions on a daily basis.

*If memory serves, to determine it's not for criminal activities, like money laundering, etc.

You may want to skip it, in that case.  I couldn't even sit through this episode, I was that done.

[Lady Iris]

On ‎8‎/‎31‎/‎2017 at 3:38 PM, Lovecat said:

That reporter is entirely too gleeful about her "insider" status, IMHO.  90% of what she said had to do with *her*--how *she* felt to be the first one to get an interview, and how exciting it was to have the potential to be the one to crack the case!!!!! <--extreme exclamation points hers, not mine.  She didn't give a shit that a woman and her unborn baby were murdered; it was all about her career.  Gross.

It is rather distasteful how gleeful she is revisiting her part in all of this. A woman and unborn child murdered and all she exudes is the thrill of the hunt in reporting.

[iMonrey]

I thought this latest episode came the closest to making a case that Scott was railroaded. I mean, in a vacuum, just what they showed did support the idea that the investigation was bungled, that the prosecution's case was flimsy and error-riddled, and that the defense shot down and refuted everything the prosecution presented. And it is a fact that no physical evidence was found in the home that Laci was killed there.

But then . . .  the last few minutes they reminded us of those taped phone calls between Scott and Amber Frey, only days after Laci went missing, with Scott laughing and giggling and flirting. Not a man who gives a damn what happened to his wife. Which is why, ladies and gentlemen, he was convicted.

So anyone who wants to base his innocence on a lack of physical evidence is just ignoring the elephant in the room and trying to make a case on technicalities. And this show is dragging out members of the Scott Peterson fan club to prop up an desperate proposition. Two of the main talking heads in this episode were active members of the Scott Peterson Innocence website. Like I give a damn what two randos think about this guy. They didn't even know him. 

As for the Peterson family, it's interesting we hear a lot from the sister-in-law and the brother-in-law but not the siblings themselves. I don't know if there's any significance to that or not, but they are so pathetically desperate they look delusional. They might have come off better at the beginning if they had just copped to the fact that yes, he was running from the law and heading towards the border when he was arrested because he felt like he was being wrongly persecuted and railroaded. Pretending he was just out for a game of golf didn't help their credibility.

[Spartan Girl]

5 hours ago, iMonrey said:

I thought this latest episode came the closest to making a case that Scott was railroaded. I mean, in a vacuum, just what they showed did support the idea that the investigation was bungled, that the prosecution's case was flimsy and error-riddled, and that the defense shot down and refuted everything the prosecution presented. And it is a fact that no physical evidence was found in the home that Laci was killed there.

But then . . .  the last few minutes they reminded us of those taped phone calls between Scott and Amber Frey, only days after Laci went missing, with Scott laughing and giggling and flirting. Not a man who gives a damn what happened to his wife. Which is why, ladies and gentlemen, he was convicted.

 

This. All this. The sister/sister in law maintaining that he was railroaded because he didn't "act normal" is pure horseshit. There's a fine line between holding all in/not wanting to show emotion and flirting with another woman while your pregnant wife is missing.

Scott had no afect whatsoever. We could see as much in the interview: he wasn't anxious, sad, angry or even frustrated about the media being "out to get him." Nothing, except a sickening attempt to charm his way out of trouble.

[druzy]

10 hours ago, iMonrey said:

And this show is dragging out members of the Scott Peterson fan club to prop up an desperate proposition. Two of the main talking heads in this episode were active members of the Scott Peterson Innocence website. Like I give a damn what two randos think about this guy. They didn't even know him. 

The two women seemed questionable to me. How were they allowed to purchase the transcripts? Who collected the money? Did they all send it to someone's Paypal account? These were strangers on the internet discussing a murder case.

The woman from the internet group who attended the trial appeared on talk shows and gave interviews to the press. Did she have an agent or was she that media savvy that major networks and newspapers valued her opinion of the evidence. Could the defense attorneys someone else be behind this group?

[LadyArcadia]

If anything, this series is making him look more guilty as it's revealing things I missed when it happened.  Scott conveniently was making cement in his garage when his wife went missing and they're trying to convince me that it's not suspicious at all?  

But let's skip over that part quickly and focus on the prosecution missing that Martha Stewart was talking about meringue that morning!  OoooOOOooooh...

This is a joke, right?

[Spartan Girl]

And the next episode is making is sound like the prosecution/police ignored the whole burglary theory because someone supposedly saw Laci arguing with the burglars or some crap like that?  Ugh. 

Quote

Could the defense attorneys someone else be behind this group?

I'm sure they're behind that group, along with all the so-called witnesses as well.

Edited September 8, 2017 by Spartan Girl

[WendyCR72]

15 hours ago, LadyArcadia said:

If anything, this series is making him look more guilty as it's revealing things I missed when it happened.  Scott conveniently was making cement in his garage when his wife went missing

What the actual fuck?! Sorry for the potty mouth, but really? (I didn't watch this one.) That scumbag made cement around the time his pregnant wife disappears and we're supposed to still find this turd innocent?!

Uh huh.

And while it ranks low on the many disgusting details about this case, while the fact that this puke murdered his wife and unborn child at all is bad enough, the fact that he did so and took her from her loved ones on Christmas Freaking Eve just makes me so ill and sad for the Rocha family.

But I expect nothing less than heinous from the scum that is Scott Peterson.

[Spartan Girl]

For those that are sick of this crap, an ABC special about Laci Peterson will air on ABC this next Thursday. It will feature an interview with Sharon Rocha, so unlike this show, it will talk about Laci and Connor like they actually mattered and not focus so much on Scott except to show him as the POS he really is.

[MonicaM]

Actually, I think that so far, this series is doing a good job of showing that Scott is a low life, and his relatives are deeply delusional.  I can understand a certain amount of denial if a member of your family commits a terrible crime, but these people are almost frightening in their delusions.  Talk about an alternative reality - these people are there.

[Spartan Girl]

Caught the tail end of the last episode when the prosecutors showed the photos of the remains with Scott showing no emotional reaction whatsoever.

Cue the idiots the defenders saying "Oh he showed emotion, just not enough to appease the media/jury/haters!"

Gag me.

[Razzberry]

I guess they needed a fresh angle, but this is ridiculous.  If a member of my family did something like that I'd be like "WTF is wrong with you?"  There's a fresh angle - interview the families about what went wrong and when.

[jadecorleone]

On 8/31/2017 at 4:13 PM, Carolyn Keene said:

I agree with everyone else. It feels like A&E wanted to show that somehow, there were ambiguities and evidence of Scott's innocence that the cops overlooked, but all I'm taking away so far is that the case against Scott is 100% damning.

I actually lived in Modesto when all this was happening and followed the case closely. I thought I pretty much knew everything there is to know, but I was surprised learn something new from the first episode--that Scott and Laci had originally told people they weren't planning to have children. This was said as an aside by someone from Scott's family, like it was cute that Scott and Laci "changed their minds" about having kids . But to me, that only provides yet another piece of his motive. I don't believe for a moment that Laci was ever the type who would have chosen to remain childless. If she and Scott were telling people this early in their marriage, I bet it was something HE was pushing, and she was just going along with it to keep him happy.

His family's sharing that factoid only serves to make Scott look more guilty because it gives him an additional motive to be cold-hearted enough to kill his pregnant wife and their unborn child. He meant what they told people early in their marriage--he really never did want children, despite whatever act he may have put on during her pregnancy.

Plus it also came out that Laci's chances of conceiving were pretty low.

One thing that has always stuck with me about this case (along with his families denial and belief that Scott is the golden child) is the fact that someone like Scott, who didnt want kids, married someone who did. Hell Im still wondering why he chose to marry anyone in the first place. 20 bucks and a bag of donuts says that he was cheating on Laci from the get go.

Nothing his family says will convince me of his innocence. A guy who is calling his mistress while at a vigil for his missing wife and unborn child is not innocent.

Edited September 11, 2017 by jadecorleone

[Spartan Girl]

3 hours ago, jadecorleone said:

Plus it also came out that Laci's chances of conceiving were pretty low.

Really? Oh God, that makes it even more horrible. Laci's mom said that Laci was so excited that threw all caution to the wind and called her family the second her home pregnancy test turned positive instead of waiting a couple weeks like most people tend to do. 

I know I never actually knew her, but the home video footage of her reminds me so much of one of my cousins; they're both dark-haired with tinkly voices. Worse, I have a two-year-old second cousin named Connor. So this crime rings several personal notes for me.

That monster can burn in several hells.

[WendyCR72]

7 hours ago, Spartan Girl said:

Plus it also came out that Laci's chances of conceiving were pretty low.

Yeah, this was mentioned on the Dateline episode months back which also focused on this case. And I questioned in that forum, as moot and sad as it is, if she would still be alive today had she never gotten pregnant.

But then she should have been able to have the child she so desperately wanted without her dirtbag spouse killing her just because he couldn't be fancy free with a baby in the picture.

Honestly? I wish Laci had figured out what a soulless POS she married and let him go and had him terminate his rights. It may have been more of a challenge, but I'm sure her family would have helped with Connor. And she'd likely have been alive to enjoy her child.

[Spartan Girl]

13 hours ago, WendyCR72 said:

And I questioned in that forum, as moot and sad as it is, if she would still be alive today had she never gotten pregnant.

I don't think it's that simple.  Someone as big a sociopath as Scott doesn't stay under wraps for long.  Even if Laci hadn't gotten pregnant, he still might have killed her for some other stupid reason (like he was bored of her and ready to move on to someone else).  And even if it hadn't been Laci, odds are he would've killed someone else like Amber or maybe another girl he was banging on the side.

There are tons of good, decent men that would walk in front of a train before they laid a hand on their wives.  It was just bad luck that Laci didn't marry any of them instead.

Edited September 12, 2017 by Spartan Girl

[Neurochick]

I always thought Scott Peterson was guilty because he RAN FOR THE BORDER.  Wasn't he caught with cash and didn't he dye his hair?

I thought he killed Laci  for the insurance, like Charles Stuart murdered his pregnant wife in 1989.

Edited September 13, 2017 by Neurochick

[willco]

Well, I might as well voice a counter-point, as it looks like everyone one else still thinks Scott is guilty. I remember when this all happened and I always believed that Scott was/is guilty. I'm not saying he's not. But if just one of things this show states is actually fact, such as Scott being at the marina while at the same time, the home computer was in use ( who else would be using it except Laci ? ) or if she really confronted crooks across the street or the witnesses at both the marina and the neighbors were correct,  etc. ( there's other things, but you know ) then maybe, just maybe, a innocent man  is sitting in prison. There have been other cases where it really did look like someone was guilty and then they were proved innocent. Scott demonstrated some really disgusting traits and actions during that time, but what if he didn't do it ? And he spends his life in prison or worse ?

 

Feel free to call me dumb, but that's my opinion.

[Maharincess]

4 hours ago, willco said:

Well, I might as well voice a counter-point, as it looks like everyone one else still thinks Scott is guilty. I remember when this all happened and I always believed that Scott was/is guilty. I'm not saying he's not. But if just one of things this show states is actually fact, such as Scott being at the marina while at the same time, the home computer was in use ( who else would be using it except Laci ? ) or if she really confronted crooks across the street or the witnesses at both the marina and the neighbors were correct,  etc. ( there's other things, but you know ) then maybe, just maybe, a innocent man  is sitting in prison. There have been other cases where it really did look like someone was guilty and then they were proved innocent. Scott demonstrated some really disgusting traits and actions during that time, but what if he didn't do it ? And he spends his life in prison or worse ?

 

Feel free to call me dumb, but that's my opinion.

I agree. I also wonder if there had been no Amber if he'd have been convicted. 

[Jillybean]

Strawberry Shortcake looks so different now.

I find it hard to believe that 8-months pregnant Laci would have confronted a neighborhood burglar, or that said burglar would have killed a pregnant woman, dismembered her, driven the body to the SF Bay, weighed it down and dumped it -- without a trace -- in the same spot where Scott went "fishing" on the same day.

I do wonder why A&E chose to air a series so sympathetic to Scott. 

Edited September 13, 2017 by Jillybean

[LadyArcadia]

I think it's worth discussing. Also, relevant since Nancy Grace discussed the impact of circumstantial evidence.  So, what do we know for sure so far?

Support Guilty:

• He was at the marina the day she went missing
• The same marina is where she was found
• He was not happy in his marriage
• He was making cement when she went missing
• He did not appear to show grief (I really hate this one because everyone acts differently, but it is a factor)
• He had $10k on him when arrested and appeared to be running

Support Innocence:

• He was on the computer in his garage the day she went missing (what does this prove exactly?)
• No one saw a body on the boat when he was in the marina
• Witnesses saw Laci the day she went missing
• No blood or evidence in the house

Edited September 13, 2017 by LadyArcadia

[iMonrey]

Quote

Scott demonstrated some really disgusting traits and actions during that time, but what if he didn't do it ? And he spends his life in prison or worse ?

Look, this show does make a good argument that the evidence was circumstantial and that there was no smoking gun. This latest episode seemed to suggest the defense team was inadequate and did a poor job, especially in summation. And yeah, I did feel bad for the Peterson family leaving the courthouse with mobs of people screaming at them to burn in hell. They didn't deserve that.

But here's the thing. The show is willfully cherry-picking "witnesses" and dismissing as irrelevant "emotions." There's a reason why the defense didn't put anyone on the stand who said they saw Laci walking her dog that day. It's because they knew they contradicted each other. What time they saw her, what she was wearing, etc. It could have been someone else waking their dog. And I'm really tired of these talking heads going "Oh, well, people were reacting on emotions not fact." Well, duh. Just because you're emotional over the deaths of Laci and her baby doesn't mean you aren't rational. Scott was on the phone with Amber laughing and flirting five days after Laci disappeared, and this show is just trying to play off his behavior like he was just a naughty scamp. 

This was not a man who cared what happened to his wife. I mean, at best, he's schizophrenic. In any case he knew she wasn't coming back. I think that was pretty clear. This show is trying to say Scott shouldn't have been convicted because no pools of blood were found in his house and nobody saw him dumping the body into the ocean. They're pretending all of his weird, suspicious behavior doesn't matter. It mattered. Sorry, it mattered.

[GHScorpiosRule]

16 minutes ago, LadyArcadia said:

I think it's worth discussing. Also, relevant since Nancy Grace discussed the impact of circumstantial evidence.  So, what do we know for sure so far?

Support Guilty:

• He was at the marina the day she went missing
• The same marina is where she was found
• He was not happy in his marriage
• He was making cement when she went missing
• He did not appear to show grief (I really hate this one because everyone acts differently, but it is a factor)
• He had $10k on him when arrested and appeared to be running

 

Regading the bolded part--not only running, but dyed his hair as not to be recognized. Sure sign of innocence!

17 minutes ago, LadyArcadia said:

Support Innocence:

• No blood or evidence in the house

He learned from the Nicole Simpson/Ronald Goldman murders.

[Vivigirl10]

Jillybean, I am totally with you regarding the theory that Laci confronted the burglars.  She appeared to be a smart girl, she wouldn't have put herself in such an unsafe situation by herself. Nope. Didn't happen. 

Quite honestly, I could have cared less about a timeline. At what exact time she went missing doesn't matter. She did and she ended up dead in the bay.

This whole show was absolutely ridiculous, but a particular favorite part of mine was when it was presented as completely impossible that Scott did the internet searches himself to cover his tracks. Excuse me??? Anyone who watches any type of true crime tv knows what a common and deliberate tactic this is. Yet they were throwing their hands up, "I mean, who would ever do such a thing"??!!!

I can't shake the memory of an article I read back during the time of the case (in something like Glamour) written by a sibling of Scott's who he stayed with after the murder. Her point of view was the utter horror of how he acted and her realization that he was in fact guilty. He was staying up over her garage or something. Yet here, his siblings were such staunch (and blind) supporters. Were there siblings that weren't shown?  Someone mentioned upthread a step-sister? Anyone remember anything like this?

[funky-rat]

On ‎9‎/‎11‎/‎2017 at 4:26 PM, jadecorleone said:

Plus it also came out that Laci's chances of conceiving were pretty low.

One thing that has always stuck with me about this case (along with his families denial and belief that Scott is the golden child) is the fact that someone like Scott, who didnt want kids, married someone who did. Hell Im still wondering why he chose to marry anyone in the first place. 20 bucks and a bag of donuts says that he was cheating on Laci from the get go.

Nothing his family says will convince me of his innocence. A guy who is calling his mistress while at a vigil for his missing wife and unborn child is not innocent.

There is a really good website I read about the case that I'll have to see if I can find again.  Laci had a tumor removed from her abdomen when she was young, and it took part of her reproductive organs, but her family was assured she shouldn't have issues conceiving, but that could have just been lip service.  My opinion has always been that she mentioned this to him somewhat early in their relationship, and he latched on to that, figuring it would give him someone who couldn't have kids ,but he could be all sympathetic, and even gain sympathy from others.  I told my husband early on that I wouldn't likely be able to have kids.  My mom told my dad that, and he was OK with it because he didn't want kids.  He changed his mind when my mom got pregnant (and she was lucky - they were never able to have more) but I wasn't so lucky.  My husband ultimately decided he wanted kids, and I was never able to.  We finally resigned ourselves, but it was rocky for a good while, and the hurt still comes up from time to time.

14 hours ago, willco said:

Well, I might as well voice a counter-point, as it looks like everyone one else still thinks Scott is guilty. I remember when this all happened and I always believed that Scott was/is guilty. I'm not saying he's not. But if just one of things this show states is actually fact, such as Scott being at the marina while at the same time, the home computer was in use ( who else would be using it except Laci ? ) or if she really confronted crooks across the street or the witnesses at both the marina and the neighbors were correct,  etc. ( there's other things, but you know ) then maybe, just maybe, a innocent man  is sitting in prison. There have been other cases where it really did look like someone was guilty and then they were proved innocent. Scott demonstrated some really disgusting traits and actions during that time, but what if he didn't do it ? And he spends his life in prison or worse ?

 

Feel free to call me dumb, but that's my opinion.

You're not dumb.  There is room for doubt there, depending on your perspective.  Especially when someone presents information in a way that is skewed to one particular viewpoint.  I have a spectacularly unpopular opinion on a high-profile case - so much so that I refuse to discuss in public.  The only thing that settles the computer issue for me is that the computer was a laptop, and could have been removed from the home and used elsewhere, and then replaced.  WiFi existed then - especially in larger cities.

22 minutes ago, Kiki620 said:

Jillybean, I am totally with you regarding the theory that Laci confronted the burglars.  She appeared to be a smart girl, she wouldn't have put herself in such an unsafe situation by herself. Nope. Didn't happen. 

Quite honestly, I could have cared less about a timeline. At what exact time she went missing doesn't matter. She did and she ended up dead in the bay.

This whole show was absolutely ridiculous, but a particular favorite part of mine was when it was presented as completely impossible that Scott did the internet searches himself to cover his tracks. Excuse me??? Anyone who watches any type of true crime tv knows what a common and deliberate tactic this is. Yet they were throwing their hands up, "I mean, who would ever do such a thing"??!!!

I can't shake the memory of an article I read back during the time of the case (in something like Glamour) written by a sibling of Scott's who he stayed with after the murder. Her point of view was the utter horror of how he acted and her realization that he was in fact guilty. He was staying up over her garage or something. Yet here, his siblings were such staunch (and blind) supporters. Were there siblings that weren't shown?  Someone mentioned upthread a step-sister? Anyone remember anything like this?

Never bought the burglary theory, and I always thought the eyewitnesses seeing her walk the dog were mistaken about the day.  Scott's half-sister wrote a book about the time he lived with her, and she was convinced early on that he was guilty.

[truebluesmoky]

I did some additional reading about the Peterson family last night because the sibling stuff threw me off as well. Scott was the only child that was the son of both his mother and his father. His father had 3 children from a prior marriage, and his mother had 1 child from a prior marriage. However, in addition to Scott and that one other child, Jackie Peterson had given two children up for adoption. Those children found each other (as adults) then met Jackie and Scott and the rest of the family. Anne is one of those siblings - she became very close with Scott and especially Laci. She is the one who let Scott stay with her after Laci's disappearance and subsequently became convinced of his guilt. She did interviews about it and wrote a book.

[iMonrey]

Quote

Never bought the burglary theory,

The problem with presenting the "burglar theory" as a viable alternative is that this show did a crap job of explaining it. In the first episode, they theorized that Laci confronted a burglary in progress, and that the burglars threw her in the van and drove off with her. That actually sounds somewhat plausible, in that the dog was found wandering the streets with his leash still on. The problem is that the police caught the burglars and determined the burglary took place two days after Laci disappeared. Now, one of the reporters who appeared on this show disputes this, on the basis that he was camped out in front of the Peterson home on the day in question. Then the show did not mention the burglary thing again for several episodes. Now they seem to be saying a witness reported seeing Laci arguing with said burglar and that she "threatened" them. Um . . . if the witness was close enough to actually hear what Laci was saying to these burglars, why wasn't he/she a target too? And how long did this go unreported and why wasn't this witness calling every media outlet camped out in front of the courthouse?

Is the show actually going to present the idea that the burglars later came back and kidnapped Laci at some later date? Then held onto her and waited until Scott Peterson became the prime suspect and then framed him? 

Bitch, please.

[Jillybean]

I got the impression from last night's episode that none of the so-called witnesses who claimed to have seen Laci walking the dog actually knew Laci -- they just had seen a woman walking a dog that morning and decided it must have been her.

BTW, ABC is doing a two-hour show tomorrow night: Truth & Lies: Laci Peterson.

[Arynm]

I went looking for the article mentioned above from the sister and wow! Her name is Anne Bird and it really shows what a sociopath he was.

The part that stuck with me the most was when the sister found out about the affair. She confronted Scott and he said that Laci was mad for a day but then "she got over it". Excuse me?

The only way that timeline works is if Laci found out about the affair and was pissed, confronted Scott and he killed her! She got over it because she was dead. Probably makes perfect sense to Scott.

This is the link I read

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/7047103/ns/dateline_nbc/t/scott-petersons-sister-speaks-out/

[Spartan Girl]

6 minutes ago, Arynm said:

I went looking for the article mentioned above from the sister and wow! Her name is Anne Bird and it really shows what a sociopath he was.

The part that stuck with me the most was when the sister found out about the affair. She confronted Scott and he said that Laci was mad for a day but then "she got over it". Excuse me?

The only way that timeline works is if Laci found out about the affair and was pissed, confronted Scott and he killed her! She got over it because she was dead. Probably makes perfect sense to Scott.

This is the link I read

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/7047103/ns/dateline_nbc/t/scott-petersons-sister-speaks-out/

No fucking way an eight-month pregnant woman would have "gotten over" finding out her husband cheating on her and keeping silent about it with her own family.

[SuzWhat]

Most troubling to me is this series has the premise that conversations taken out of context are what convicted Peterson.  Yet, they are doing the same to the jurors, police and reporters.   So far they have not explained the most damning evidence; that Peterson told Amber Frey he "lost his wife and it was his first holiday season without her" 2 months before she went missing.  Are  we to believe someone heard that and framed him?  How do they explain that?  

[fountain]

The burglar thing is weird.  Was it just one person who said it was Laci or did Laci herself tell the police?  Why would a pregnant woman confront someone committing a crime?  First, just as a woman I wouldn't do it, I would call the police.  Second, when I was pregnant I was way more risk adverse.  So it is really hard to believe Laci unless she herself told the police.