The Murder Of Laci Peterson - General Discussion

[Spartan Girl]

6 hours ago, iMonrey said:

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. 

I wanted to slap that stupid male reporter whose reaction to Amber Frey was "Oh he's not a killer, he's just a schmuck with a girlfriend!"

Do these idiots even watch Investigation Discovery? Most husband that killed their wives did it BECAUSE they were schmucks with girlfriends!!!!

And a pregnant woman risking her own life and her unborn baby's by confronting burglars? Yeah. Right. Sure.

Edited September 14, 2017 by Spartan Girl

[funky-rat]

I remember people saying that it was proof he didn't kill his wife because Amber had a daughter that he seemingly adored.  Repeat after me:  IT'S DIFFERENT WHEN IT'S NOT YOUR KID!  He never planned on doing anything long-term with Amber.  She was a meaningless fling to him.  I'm convinced that he regretted getting married to begin with, and would have spent the rest of his existence as a swinging bachelor if he hadn't have gotten caught.  In that article I referenced earlier, it said he was a serial cheater.  He cheated at least twice on Laci when the were in college - once she caught him and once she didn't.  And I'm sure there were more.  That article also said that he started being a pathological liar in high school.

[Spartan Girl]

Watching the ABC special now. Lots more attention is drawn to Scott's damning behavior long before the Amber bombshell. According to Sharon Rocha, the last time she saw Laci, they were sitting on the couch together trying to feel the baby kick while Scott was aitting on the floor. Laci confided to her mother that Scott never wanted to feel the baby kick, never even tried to touch her stomach once.

Then of course the infamous phone call Scott made to Sharon Christmas Eve saying Laci was "missing". Using that exact word. Like he thought it out.

And this after he came home from "fishing" and claimed to find the door open with the dog in the yard and no Laci...and apparently decided to take his sweet time washing his clothes, showering, and eating before even trying to find Laci.

And then the calm demeanor during police questioning...then deciding at the last minute not to take a polygraph.

"Stone cold innocent" my ass.

[Razzberry]

Tonight's segment was more balanced.  The cop also explained how the other pregnant woman with a dog sighting was mistaken identity.

[renatae]

On 09/13/2017 at 3:30 PM, iMonrey said:

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.

Just as dumb as the idea that someone waited to dump the body in the bay, close to where Scott had been fishing, once they learned he had be been fishing. You know, to frame him.

[Jillybean]

4 hours ago, renatae said:

Just as dumb as the idea that someone waited to dump the body in the bay, close to where Scott had been fishing, once they learned he had be been fishing. You know, to frame him.

That one reporter with the gray hair seems wedded to this theory.  It's absurd.

So at the end of the ABC show they revealed the "new evidence" which is that Strawberry Shortcake failed to disclose that she'd had to get a restraining order against someone when she was pregnant. So...apparently Scott is asking for a new trial based on this. Good luck with that. 

I hate that the A&E show features "chat room commentators" giving their two cents -- it really compromises what credibility the show does have. Not that all the media are so credible, either. Gloria Gomez salivating over her recollection of the finding of the bodies was unconscionable. 

Anyway, hard to believe the same network that airs Leah Remini: Scientology and the Aftermath is responsible for this turd.

Edited September 15, 2017 by Jillybean

[Spartan Girl]

2 hours ago, Jillybean said:

Gloria Gomez salivating over her recollection of the finding of the bodies was unconscionable. 

Seriously.  I know Nancy Grace always jumps the gun about these kinds of cases, but even she was sensitive enough to show more empathy than that bitch.

[Marsupial]

Quote

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 far from dumb. It seems clear that Scott Peterson's guilt is still being hung on a very flimsy evidentiary frame. I am not saying he's innocent, but I am saying that he definitely did not get a fair investigation or trial, and his case deserves to be re-opened. This documentary points to a lot of issues that the press misrepresented at the time--(shocking, I know, but "fake news" didn't start with the Trump era, remember, these are the same people who told you that Saddam Hussein was responsible for the 9-11 attacks). It's clear that there was juror misconduct in this case, and despite the dismissive remarks made here about it, a juror who lies or withholds important information is a very serious legal matter. 

The Scott Peterson jurors had two replacements, one being Nichelle Rice (Strawberry Shortcake) who came in at the last minute. The jury deliberated NINE HOURS on a death penalty case!?! WTF. I was on a jury for a minor drug deal where the guy sold drugs to an undercover cop and it took us almost two days to reach a verdict and agree on a sentence!! In a case with NO physical evidence, it's clear they didn't even do a token deliberation of the circumstantial evidence, which was also weak. After the trial, the jurors were interviewed by a CNN reporter about several pieces of defense evidence that clearly contradicted the state's case (e.g. the fact that Laci was on her computer at 9:45 that morning), and they were all like "duh, compu what??" Apparently, they didn't even look at the evidence. 

The OJ jury gets slammed a lot for their acquittal, but they made the right decision based on the crappy case the state put forward. In this case, I think Peterson can make a fair case that his defense did not present as strong a case as it should have and that there was very serious juror misconduct.

I think it is useful to view this documentary as a starting point to examine what really happened in this case. I wouldn't base an answer (guilty or innocent) on the basis of one documentary or book or article or whatever, but a dispassionate analysis of the facts. 

Granted, I take a polarizing stand on many high-profile cases but I like to think that I do so out of a considered, dispassionate look at the facts. I'm sure I get it wrong sometimes but I try to make an honest effort, and I think that Scott Peterson deserves the same consideration.

Edited September 15, 2017 by Marsupial
left word out

[Marsupial]

Here's a summary of the burglary connection, since accounts of it have been confusing:

http://pwc-sii.com/Research/burglary/medina.htm

[iMonrey]

The ABC special really emphasized how horribly unfair and disrespectful this A&E show is to the Rocha family. Where are the interviews with Laci's family and friends? They make a pretty clear case for what a liar Scott Peterson was. 

Quote

After the trial, the jurors were interviewed by a CNN reporter about several pieces of defense evidence that clearly contradicted the state's case (e.g. the fact that Laci was on her computer at 9:45 that morning), and they were all like "duh, compu what??" Apparently, they didn't even look at the evidence. 

I don't know whether or not the computer stuff even came up during the trial but it's impossible to know whether it was really Laci on the computer or Scott pretending Laci was on the computer. So it's kind of a moot point (it doesn't "prove" anything). Same with all the people who claim they saw Laci walking the dog that morning - their accounts were so inconsistent and contradictory the prosecution would have torn them apart. And as the ABC special reported, the police were able to identify the "pregnant woman walking the dog" and it wasn't Laci.

[Jillybean]

22 minutes ago, Marsupial said:

Here's a summary of the burglary connection, since accounts of it have been confusing:

http://pwc-sii.com/Research/burglary/medina.htm

Is this one of the "chat room commenter" sites? It states that Scott Peterson was "wrongly convicted."

[Marsupial]

Quote

I don't know whether or not the computer stuff even came up during the trial but it's impossible to know whether it was really Laci on the computer or Scott pretending Laci was on the computer.

The point is that they never even considered the possibility that she was still alive at that time. They totally disregarded it, were not even aware of it.

What about the fact that Strawberry Shortcake stated she based her entire conviction on the "fact" that the dog trailer caught Laci's scent on the pier? This AFTER the dog and trainer were both completely discredited. A man's life was at stake here and that was the best this jury could do?

Quote

And this after he came home from "fishing" and claimed to find the door open with the dog in the yard and no Laci...and apparently decided to take his sweet time washing his clothes, showering, and eating before even trying to find Laci.

And then the calm demeanor during police questioning...then deciding at the last minute not to take a polygraph.

He assumed that Laci was at her parent's house, which was where she had been planning to go. He assumed she had gotten a ride with someone because her car was still at the house. He didn't realize that she wasn't there until her father called him asking when they were planning to arrive.

As to his calm demeanour during questioning, so what? Other killers have wept like babies and wailed for their lost loved ones after killing them. It proves nothing. And polygraphs are notoriously unreliable. I wouldn't take one if I were being questioned about a crime I didn't commit. 

A lot of the "evidence" mounted against Peterson are that he wasn't a nice guy (he was calm! He screwed another woman! he didn't want to feel the baby kick! he lied!) BUT NONE OF IT proves that he killed Laci. 

[WendyCR72]

On 9/13/2017 at 1:35 PM, GHScorpiosRule said:

He learned from the Nicole Simpson/Ronald Goldman murders.

Some latex gloves, a tarp, bleach. (Although I know blood can still appear/luminesce with Luminol. But if he used a tarp, as I said...) Even in 2002, CSI was on the air as was Forensic Files. Watch them long enough if one has a cunning mind and I'm sure ol' Scott could have learned some pointers.

[iMonrey]

Quote

The point is that they never even considered the possibility that she was still alive at that time. They totally disregarded it, were not even aware of it.

Which is it? They totally disregarded it, or they were not even aware of it? Those are two different things. If they disregarded it, then it was presented (or postulated) by the defense. If they disregarded it, it may not be that they didn't even consider it. It may be that the prosecution successfully debunked the notion. If they were not even aware of it, then that means the defense never brought it up. 

Quote

A lot of the "evidence" mounted against Peterson are that he wasn't a nice guy (he was calm! He screwed another woman! he didn't want to feel the baby kick! he lied!) BUT NONE OF IT proves that he killed Laci. 

Well, that's certainly what this show would like us to believe. And it's true "a lot of" evidence was circumstantial and by itself did not prove guilt. Where the show loses me is in its deliberate and cynical dismissal of Scott's behavior as a whole. It isn't any one thing like how he behaved with the police or how he behaved in interviews, it's a mounting pattern of behavior that clearly demonstrated the man was a chronic liar and didn't really care about his missing wife and child and/or knew they weren't coming back. It's the lies, it's the boat his wife didn't even know about, it's the affair, it's the tapes, it's the $15 grand in his car, it's a lot of things that all add up. You can pick apart any one of those things but you can't deny there's way too many of those things.

The other problem with this show is that it's wildly uneven and biased: no interviews with the Rocha family, no interviews with Laci's friends, etc. The only people we hear from are those protesting his conviction - nobody from the other side with the notable exception of that ass clown Nancy Grace, because that works in the show's favor.

[chabelisaywow]

I followed this case because I'm from the Bay Area and when it was first reported - I remember saying "the husband did it."

I based my opinion on the likelihood of someone going fishing on Christmas Eve (90 miles away), while pregnant wife at home, and something happens to her.

I've read every book on this subject and even ordered Dalton's book just to be fair (the lawyer/investigator who almost has a man crush on Scott - crying at how innocent he is).

Scott may have never been violent, but he has a pattern of thinking he can get away with stuff. Cheating on HS girlfriend, stealing from his golf course job, lying, etc.

He has been enabled by his parents since day 1.

Scott fancied himself becoming the mayor of some town, having no children, and things didn't go his way.

Scott told the friend who introduced him to Amber that his wife was "gone" - when confronted about his marriage. He then told Amber the story about this being the first holiday after the loss of his wife - 3 weeks or so before Laci's disappearance.

On Christmas Eve, his truck was backed up to the gate of his house and he was loading something.  When asked, he claimed he was bringing his patio umbrellas to the warehouse for storage.  Where were the umbrellas found? Still at house.

When asked about the tarp or whatever covered his load - he stalls, eventually turning it over as evidence.  In the meantime - he had stored a leaf blower that was leaking gas on it.

On this trip to Berkeley - he calls Laci's cell - leaves that really fake sounding message (hey beautiful).  Jackie Peterson tells police that it was known, Laci's cell was broken.

Scott also buys a minimal amount of gas on his way home. Both of these things - plus hanging on to the ramp receipt, were deliberate things to set an alibi.

The cement to make the anchors came from a 50 pound bag - they found one anchor. The cement thrown on the driveway - didn't match the cement from the bag. Where did the rest of the cement go?

The torso had remnants of clothing that matched what Laci's sister said she was wearing when she saw her the night before.

I could go on and on about about other "circumstantial" evidence - but either Scott is guilty or he is one statistically unlucky dude.

(Most of the detailed information came from Catherine Crier's book on the subject)

The A&E show was so biased .

What kills me is that they use interviews from the Caudillos (sister and brother in law) - those two opted not to chip in for legal defense fund, spending money on an infinity pool instead. 

They are on this show - not because they believe in innocence, they believe in $$.

Nancy Grace, however much she is disliked said it best "you don't have to see the storm, to know it rained."  or whatever.

Spoiler

Spoiler

Next week they will bring up the case of Evelyn Hernandez. You know who the suspect is in that case? The father of her unborn baby - who was also married. 

 

Edited September 15, 2017 by chabelisaywow
This subject gets me so heated - it makes me misspell

[Jillybean]

1 hour ago, WendyCR72 said:

Some latex gloves, a tarp, bleach. (Although I know blood can still appear/luminesce with Luminol. But if he used a tarp, as I said...) Even in 2002, CSI was on the air as was Forensic Files. Watch them long enough if one has a cunning mind and I'm sure ol' Scott could have learned some pointers.

Funny enough, I've heard it said by deterctives and prosecutors that the popularity of procedurals like CSI have misled the public to believe that there must be an abundance of physical evidence to prove guilt in a crime, when in reality, most cases are largely circumstantial.  In this case, it's simply impossible to ignore the vast wealth of circumstantial evidence.

Edited September 15, 2017 by Jillybean

[pennben]

13 hours ago, Marsupial said:

I am saying that he definitely did not get a fair investigation or trial, and his case deserves to be re-opened.

Wow! That's an incredibly serious charge to level.  And, one I don't think is merited here at all. Having a fair investigation or trial doesn't mean having a perfect investigation or trial.  I'm not sure any imperfections in this investigation or trial warrants reopening this case.  I agree with Jillybean, CSI and other shows have ultimately led to folks dismissing circumstantial cases, waiting for the smoking gun.  That generally doesn't happen. Circumstantial evidence doesn't mean a case is weak in and of itself.  Often it can be overwhelming, like it was here.  

As for his defense attorney being incompetent, which is his current appeal (along with the questions about the juror), I'm not buying it.  Maybe a different attorney would have taken the chance in putting on the burglary evidence, but if it was unreliable, it would have blown up further in Peterson's face than leaving it out.  That's a tough call to make either way. You don't automatically get a do-over to make the different judgment when you lose. 

And if one decides one quick jury is clearly right after months of testimony (4 hours for OJ), I'm not sure one then can assert unequivocally that another is clearly wrong (9 hours, here) because they decided too quickly. At that point, you are talking evaluation of substance, not time of deliberation. Sometimes quick juries get it wrong, sometimes they get it right.  Sometimes juries deliberate for days and get it wrong, sometimes juries deliberate for days and get it right. 

ETA:  I think that it is useful to NOT view this as a documentary. It is certainly not that. It is something showing us a different perspective. 

Edited September 16, 2017 by pennben

[hatchetgirl]

I think there jury misconduct for sure, which, I think deserves a look at and potentially opening portions of the case up. Geragos a bad attorney? Lol. I don't like the guy one bit, but he's a good trial attorney.

I do think Scott is completely guilty though.

[Jillybean]

pennben, thanks for that link. It'll be interesting to see what happens, but I htink the chances of a new trial are slim.

I've always been curious why someone would go fishing if the weather weren't favorable for golfing? 

[Neurochick]

I think Scott is guilty; I think he did it, but I can also understand the questions.  Sometimes there's a problem when the police and DA zero in on a suspect because a lot of times it's done because of community or political pressure.  

I remember when this whole thing was going down and immediately, I thought of this case.  Because when it happened, many were sure that Stuart was telling the truth, how could a middle class, white guy murder his pregnant wife?  I was listening to a Christian radio station at the time and even they were duped.  I also remember when they had to admit they'd been wrong about the whole thing.  

[truebluesmoky]

On 9/15/2017 at 3:09 PM, Marsupial said:

He assumed that Laci was at her parent's house, which was where she had been planning to go. He assumed she had gotten a ride with someone because her car was still at the house. He didn't realize that she wasn't there until her father called him asking when they were planning to arrive.

 

I just watched the first half of the ABC special, and it mentioned that Scott told detectives he was concerned when he couldn't reach Laci on the home phone or her cell during the day, and when he got home, he found both the dog in the backyard with the leash on and the back door unlocked, neither of which was anything Laci would have done if she'd somehow caught a ride to her parents' house early. Between not being able to reach her all day and being worried about it, the dog being left outside still on its leash, and the back door being unlocked, it doesn't add up that Scott just assumed she was at her parents' house. Even if Scott did think there were excuses for those oddities and she was PROBABLY at her parents' house, by his own admission all three of those things were concerning, so does it really add up that he would eat, do laundry, and shower before checking to make sure she'd gone to her parents' house?

[pennben]

For anyone with too much time on their hands, here's a link to the prosecutors response to the habeas petition, this is the second of Peterson's appeals.  His first appeal is also still before the California Supreme Court. This is the appeal that references constitutional violations.  I haven't looked at the appeal still pending referencing purported wrongs during trial.  This article gives the gist of the current state of play of both.  Wow, I'm reminded these appeals take a long time!

Edited September 17, 2017 by pennben

[spiderpig]

My commute back in the late 90s/early 2000s took me right by San Quentin, where there were a number of executions going on during that time frame.  News trucks, protesters, sharpshooters in guard towers...

I was curious when the last execution was carried out in California.  It was January, 2006.  There are currently 747 CA inmates awaiting execution including Peterson (also including 22 women).  Interesting link with photos here:

http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-me-death-row/

Scott was 30 years old when convicted and is now 44.  He seems more likely to die of natural causes than from lethal injection, or whatever method the state would use.

Nonetheless, Scott's in The Q where he belongs, in my opinion, having heard about the case constantly throughout.  I live a few miles from where the remains washed up.  The whole Christmas/fishing scenario was ridiculous to most of us living in Northern California.  If you've ever served on a jury, they will stress the importance of circumstantial evidence in proving a case, and the unreliability of eyewitnesses.

Having said that, the A&E managed to interview a couple of Loony Tunes jurors, specifically the large gentleman who seemed very camera-happy and eager to make some cash on a book deal.  In my jury experience, fellow jurors took their responsibilities so seriously they were reluctant to engage in any conversation other than about where they went for lunch.

I agree the A&E presentation was biased in the extreme.  But Scott's where he is and ain't going anywhere, so I guess they can say what they want.

[LadyArcadia]

On 9/15/2017 at 11:47 PM, pennben said:

Wow! That's an incredibly serious charge to level.  And, one I don't think is merited here at all. Having a fair investigation or trial doesn't mean having a perfect investigation or trial.  I'm not sure any imperfections in this investigation or trial warrants reopening this case.  I agree with Jillybean, CSI and other shows have ultimately led to folks dismissing circumstantial cases, waiting for the smoking gun.  That generally doesn't happen. Circumstantial evidence doesn't mean a case is weak in and of itself.  Often it can be overwhelming, like it was here.  

As for his defense attorney being incompetent, which is his current appeal (along with the questions about the juror), I'm not buying it.  Maybe a different attorney would have taken the chance in putting on the burglary evidence, but if it was unreliable, it would have blown up further in Peterson's face than leaving it out.  That's a tough call to make either way. You don't automatically get a do-over to make the different judgment when you lose. 

And if one decides one quick jury is clearly right after months of testimony (4 hours for OJ), I'm not sure one then can assert unequivocally that another is clearly wrong (9 hours, here) because they decided too quickly. At that point, you are talking evaluation of substance, not time of deliberation. Sometimes quick juries get it wrong, sometimes they get it right.  Sometimes juries deliberate for days and get it wrong, sometimes juries deliberate for days and get it right. 

ETA:  I think that it is useful to NOT view this as a documentary. It is certainly not that. It is something showing us a different perspective. 

This is from the link you posted:

"The timeline largely was established by a next-door-neighbor who found the Petersons’ golden retriever wandering in the street, leash attached, before the alleged sightings of Laci and her dog. Also, the burglary victims left home after the dog was found. Those credible witnesses unravel Peterson’s claim of discovering new evidence, contends supervising deputy attorney general Donna Provenzano."

Now I'm even more pissed off. Scott's family are all disgusting pieces of shit. This "documentary" isn't just leaving out important evidence in order to spin their story, they're flat out lying to us.

[funky-rat]

I was trying to find info on how Jackie felt about Laci.  I often wondered if she felt Laci was not good enough for Golden Boy, and if she would speak badly about her to Scott, like my late MIL would do about me.  I didn't really get an answer, other than she was irritated that they moved closer to Laci's family.  But I did find this site.  Now it's a pro-guilty site, so take it with a grain of salt, but a lot of what is posted comes from legit sources (some I question).  Some interesting things:  http://www.findlaci2003.us/inconsistant.html

[iMonrey]

Quote

Now I'm even more pissed off. Scott's family are all disgusting pieces of shit. This "documentary" isn't just leaving out important evidence in order to spin their story, they're flat out lying to us.

That may  be going a bit too far. I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, that they have convinced themselves of his innocence and are simply in denial of evidence that contradicts their beliefs. As I noted earlier it's interesting that we're not hearing from all of Scott's family . . . only those who still profess his innocence. He has a sister, for example, who believe he is guilty.

[LadyArcadia]

30 minutes ago, iMonrey said:

That may  be going a bit too far. I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, that they have convinced themselves of his innocence and are simply in denial of evidence that contradicts their beliefs. As I noted earlier it's interesting that we're not hearing from all of Scott's family . . . only those who still profess his innocence. He has a sister, for example, who believe he is guilty.

I'll take back "all" as clearly some feel he's guilty.  Those who are part of this show; however, are complete pieces of shit. Denial is one thing, lying to the public is another. I don't appreciate being conned. Give me facts and let me decide for myself.  If he's truly innocent, the facts should stand on their own.

[funky-rat]

20 hours ago, LadyArcadia said:

I'll take back "all" as clearly some feel he's guilty.  Those who are part of this show; however, are complete pieces of shit. Denial is one thing, lying to the public is another. I don't appreciate being conned. Give me facts and let me decide for myself.  If he's truly innocent, the facts should stand on their own.

I think his mother was the most problematic.  I don't believe any other family members questioned anything she said, and she was so laser focused on proving her Golden Boy innocent, that everyone else just agreed.  The half-sister (who feels he's guilty) wrote a book, and she mentioned in it that Jackie (the mother) asked her to provide alibis for him, and she refused in the end.  Look up the list of what was found in his car when he was arrested.  He was NOT coming back.  She claims that she withdrew too much money and gave it for him to hold?  Nope.  She gave it to him so he could escape.  From some of what I've read, it appears his mom had issues with the truth as well, so it's small wonder where he got it from.

[willco]

On 9/13/2017 at 3:17 PM, funky-rat said:

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.

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.

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.

I thought I heard, I must have just assumed- partly because it was 15 years ago and laptops were still kind of expensive back then- that the computer was a desktop. Still, though, Wi-fi only goes so far, at least home-based wi-fi, right ? I still believe that if it was use when they have proof that Scott was at the marina, then that is strong evidence. Why, if that was presented, it didn't sway the jury, I don't know. I will say, I re- watched the part at the end when the jury members were laughing it up and making jokes, and I find that despicable and rather disturbing. I just don't believe that they were unbiased.

 

I watched the 20/20 special that ABC did after this and I thought they landed much more in the "Scott is guilty" conclusion.

 

Tonight is the finale, it sounds like they are going to have more evidence pointing to innocence. Should be good.

 

I'll add one other thing, apologies if this has been addressed somewhere else, but I always wonder : if Scott did indeed kill her and dumped her body in the Bay, why in the world would he tell the cops that is where he went fishing ? Why not say anywhere else, even go somewhere else and get a toll ticket from there, to show he'd been there ? That just never made any sense to me. Was he that arrogant ? Did he not think they body would ever be found ? Was he just stupid ? This detail has always baffled me.

Edited September 19, 2017 by willco
add something

[chabelisaywow]

Quote

Quote

I'll add one other thing, apologies if this has been addressed somewhere else, but I always wonder : if Scott did indeed kill her and dumped her body in the Bay, why in the world would he tell the cops that is where he went fishing ? Why not say anywhere else, even go somewhere else and get a toll ticket from there, to show he'd been there ? That just never made any sense to me. Was he that arrogant ? Did he not think they body would ever be found ? Was he just stupid ? This detail has always baffled me.

 

I read that upon hearing this, Jackie said it was a stupid move ,"my God, Scott, even you." (couldn't be that stupid.)

Scott did tell people initially he had planned to go golfing and a few people that he was golfing. Speculation was that people did see him at the marina and didn't want to get ID'd there, so he had to admit he went there. 

[chabelisaywow]

So now to disprove Prosecution timeline - they are throwing out:

Laci's was home when Karen Servas returns dog. Like the dog normally hung out by itself all the time. Karen Servas testifies dog dragging leash - it's muddy.

Laci supposedly walks dog after it returned by neighbor.  With a muddy leash? "Fastidious" Lacy? Unlikely.

Laci returns home after her walk.

Puts dog back in yard.

Confronts burglars.

Why was dog found by Scott with leash still on?

He admits he took the leash (still muddy) off and throws it on a table in the yard.

The defense can't get around that dog was returned by Karen Servas at 10:18.

[Razzberry]

So let me get this straight.  The hispanic woman who was also pregnant saw a couple of guys sitting outside her business.  She said they looked scary, but had no contact with them.   From this she infers they were probably looking for a pregnant woman to kidnap and hurries inside.   They couldn't grab her, so they got Lacey instead.   What???

Pregnant women are indeed twice as likely to be murdered, by their boyfriend or husband.

[Reppiks2897]

On 8/30/2017 at 9:41 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.

Or selling her car a less than 2 weeks after Laci went missing! An "Innocent" husband had no hope at all she was coming home?  I truly believe an innocent father to be wouldn't want to sell the house, wouldn't want to sell her car, wouldn't use the nursery as storage, they would keep everything in place hoping that their wife was coming home.

 Detectives watching Scott Peterson proved that he visited the marina five times in five different rented vehicles as law enforcement officers searched the bay before the bodies were recovered, surmising that he was “checking to see if searchers were looking in the right place.”  

[ElderPrice]

So Modesto is evidently a snake den of satanists who kipnap and kill pregnant women every Christmas Eve. Laci and Scott picked a bad neighborhood to live in, I guess. Is there a straw his horrible family HASN'T clutched? How hurtful to Laci's family. 

[chabelisaywow]

Quote

Pregnant women are indeed twice as likely to be murdered, by their boyfriend or husband.

Evelyn Hernandez who was pregnant also found dumped in the bay - main suspect in her murder?

Her married boyfriend.

She was going to "out" him to his wife - her proof was going to be that the baby she was carrying was his.

[Reppiks2897]

8 hours ago, Razzberry said:

So let me get this straight.  The hispanic woman who was also pregnant saw a couple of guys sitting outside her business.  She said they looked scary, but had no contact with them.   From this she infers they were probably looking for a pregnant woman to kidnap and hurries inside.   They couldn't grab her, so they got Lacey instead.   What???

Pregnant women are indeed twice as likely to be murdered, by their boyfriend or husband.

 Not only did they look scary, but she said they look like criminals and had faces like killers. 

[TheGreenWave]

8 hours ago, chabelisaywow said:

So now to disprove Prosecution timeline - they are throwing out:

Laci's was home when Karen Servas returns dog. Like the dog normally hung out by itself all the time. Karen Servas testifies dog dragging leash - it's muddy.

Laci supposedly walks dog after it returned by neighbor.  With a muddy leash? "Fastidious" Lacy? Unlikely.

Laci returns home after her walk.

Puts dog back in yard.

Confronts burglars.

Why was dog found by Scott with leash still on?

He admits he took the leash (still muddy) off and throws it on a table in the yard.

The defense can't get around that dog was returned by Karen Servas at 10:18.

I think the appellate defense team was arguing that Karen was wrong about the time she returned the dog - so her testimony/statements should have been challenged from the get-go.  Last night's argument was that the mailman could have testified that, since he heard no barking from McKenzie when he delivered the mail at like 10:45, that meant Laci was out walking the dog at that time, and, therefore, all the neighborhood eyewitnesses were correct in the timeline, not Karen.  Since neither Scott's original defense team nor the jury ever knew about the mailman's statement to police and his electronic timeline (it was in the appellate documentation, I believe, but some scanning (?) issue was to blame), no one had any reason to dispute the neighbor's account (plus, she came off as a pretty reliable eye witness).  The supposed confrontation with the burglars would have occurred after Laci dropped the dog in the backyard with the gate open and went across the street.

8 hours ago, Razzberry said:

So let me get this straight.  The hispanic woman who was also pregnant saw a couple of guys sitting outside her business.  She said they looked scary, but had no contact with them.   From this she infers they were probably looking for a pregnant woman to kidnap and hurries inside.   They couldn't grab her, so they got Lacey instead.   What???

This was a terrible theory.  Too many obvious differences between her and Laci.  If they really wanted to showcase their evidence on reasonable doubt, they should have stuck with the timeline by the mailman, the questionable dog sniffing evidence, and poor baby Conner's autopsy.  Everything else was garbage (see also, Satanic cults in Modesto's airport region or whatever they called it).  As much as I think the charge against "Strawberry Shortcake" lying on her jury questionnaire is a nothing-burger, it could be the type of "technicality" that gets Scott a new trial.  You know, one man's technicality is another man's constitutional right.

On ‎9‎/‎17‎/‎2017 at 3:44 AM, pennben said:

Wow, I'm reminded these appeals take a long time!

Seriously!  Aren't death penalty cases automatically appealed (or does that vary by state?).  I'm wondering if they wouldn't even be bothering with this exercise if the penalty had been life w/ no parole.  Since death penalty, looks like they might actually have more challenges to the conduct of the trial.

[CaliforniaLove]

The one fact that has never made sense to me, is Scott saying he was deciding whether he wanted to go fishing or golfing, and he decided it was too cold for golf...so it's too cold to walk around on a golf course, but not too cold to be on the water...in Northern California...in December? Say what?

[iMonrey]

Quote

So Modesto is evidently a snake den of satanists who kipnap and kill pregnant women every Christmas Eve. Laci and Scott picked a bad neighborhood to live in, I guess. Is there a straw his horrible family HASN'T clutched? How hurtful to Laci's family. 

I know - I was like "Satanists? Serial killers? Meth heads? I thought you said it was the burglars."

I don't know who the audience for this show is supposed to be. Maybe A&E thinks this sort of thing is ground-breaking, since they did essentially the same thing with their Jon Benet special. Most people think Jon Benet's parents (or brother) killed her so they want to do a show that "proves" the opposing theory. The trouble is, in order to do that, they have to present a very lopsided, biased program that omits any opposing narrative. Worse, they present discredited "witnesses" and debunked theories as though they are still viable, without any challenge to them.

Now, when they do that in the Ramsey case, the people who take the fall are the Boulder police, who are not personally connected to the victim, so nobody really cares. But when they do this with Scott Peterson, it's disgracefully disrespectful to Laci Peterson's family and close friends. It's like their side of the story is irrelevant.

These people who are trying to claim Scott is innocent all hang their hats on the same idea, which is that "just because he cheated on his wife doesn't mean he murdered her." And while that's technically true, they're playing a game with words. They're subtly suggesting you have to dismiss the fact that Scott lied and cheated, which isn't how law works and it isn't how murder cases work. His lying and cheating may not prove he murdered anyone but they are not irrelevant. Not by a long shot. So if you keep hammering away at this mantra that cheating doesn't "prove" the murder you're playing a game of obfuscation. 

None of the theories they were throwing at us clear Scott. Aliens could have come down out of the sky and kidnapped Laci. Just because other things could have happened doesn't make all the evidence against Scott go away.

[LadyArcadia]

4 minutes ago, iMonrey said:

None of the theories they were throwing at us clear Scott. Aliens could have come down out of the sky and kidnapped Laci. Just because other things could have happened doesn't make all the evidence against Scott go away.

^This. A thousand times, this.  All of these whackadoodle theories do not discount the evidence against Scott.

Again, my biggest complaint about this show is the intentional removal of facts that point to Scott's guilt.  This isn't a fact-based unbiased documentary.  

[Razzberry]

It's an endless parade of defense attorneys, family members and hangers-on who are desperately trying to put one over on the public.   Lovely, there was another pregnant woman killed and thrown in the bay like piece of garbage, but contrary to what the defenders of these dirtbags say, there is no cause for alarm about strange men looking to target pregnant women.  

The odds that Peterson will ever be executed are slim, but he's where he belongs.

Edited September 20, 2017 by Razzberry

[funky-rat]

22 hours ago, willco said:

I thought I heard, I must have just assumed- partly because it was 15 years ago and laptops were still kind of expensive back then- that the computer was a desktop. Still, though, Wi-fi only goes so far, at least home-based wi-fi, right ? I still believe that if it was use when they have proof that Scott was at the marina, then that is strong evidence. Why, if that was presented, it didn't sway the jury, I don't know. I will say, I re- watched the part at the end when the jury members were laughing it up and making jokes, and I find that despicable and rather disturbing. I just don't believe that they were unbiased.

I think the jury was unprofessional, but I think they took a page from the OJ case and looked for their 15 minutes.

I'm 99% sure the photo of the computer they showed was a laptop - Toshiba seems to stick out in my mind.  I bought a laptop 2-ish years later for right around $300.  Not horribly expensive.  The computer would log the search date/time/subject, but he could have taken the computer anywhere and used it was my point.

4 hours ago, TheGreenWave said:

I think the appellate defense team was arguing that Karen was wrong about the time she returned the dog - so her testimony/statements should have been challenged from the get-go.  Last night's argument was that the mailman could have testified that, since he heard no barking from McKenzie when he delivered the mail at like 10:45, that meant Laci was out walking the dog at that time, and, therefore, all the neighborhood eyewitnesses were correct in the timeline, not Karen.  Since neither Scott's original defense team nor the jury ever knew about the mailman's statement to police and his electronic timeline (it was in the appellate documentation, I believe, but some scanning (?) issue was to blame), no one had any reason to dispute the neighbor's account (plus, she came off as a pretty reliable eye witness).  The supposed confrontation with the burglars would have occurred after Laci dropped the dog in the backyard with the gate open and went across the street.

This was a terrible theory.  Too many obvious differences between her and Laci.  If they really wanted to showcase their evidence on reasonable doubt, they should have stuck with the timeline by the mailman, the questionable dog sniffing evidence, and poor baby Conner's autopsy.  Everything else was garbage (see also, Satanic cults in Modesto's airport region or whatever they called it).  As much as I think the charge against "Strawberry Shortcake" lying on her jury questionnaire is a nothing-burger, it could be the type of "technicality" that gets Scott a new trial.  You know, one man's technicality is another man's constitutional right.

The mailman surmised the dog wasn't there because the gate was open, and the dog didn't bark and it always barked.  That's not enough for me, but I'm not on his defense team.

The cult angle was laughable at best, and the woman ran and hid, so she doesn't know what those people wanted with her.  Not saying they didn't mean her harm, but we have no clue.

I believed Strawberry when she said that she thought since the case was dropped and never went to trial that it didn't apply.  Personally, I would ask more in-depth, but that's me.

[Spartan Girl]

Watching the clip of Nancy and Lee going at it was something. I might have felt a little pity for Lee had it not been for that part of the ABC special where Lee and Jackie just brushed aside Scott's cheating as "sewing his wild oats."

Ugh. A better response would have been something like: "What our son did was wrong, but just because he cheated doesn't make us think he's a murderer." But they're so deep in denial they're in Egypt.

[TheGreenWave]

1 hour ago, funky-rat said:

The cult angle was laughable at best, and the woman ran and hid, so she doesn't know what those people wanted with her.  Not saying they didn't mean her harm, but we have no clue.

I felt really embarrassed for her - I mean, this random guy shows up at her door with a camera crew and asks her about the "scary men" incident that she called the police about almost 15 years ago?  "Hey, not sure if you remember me, but I asked you about a 911 call you made 14 years ago when I was part of Scott Peterson's defense team. Can we come in and talk to you? Oh, by the way, can you have your child (who would have been born around the same time as Conner) sit in on part of the interview? Yes?  Great."  My fear would have been that they wanted to rob my store, not that they wanted to kidnap me and take my baby for some ritual.

25 minutes ago, Spartan Girl said:

Watching the clip of Nancy and Lee going at it was something. I might have felt a little pity for Lee had it not been for that part of the ABC special where Lee and Jackie just brushed aside Scott's cheating as "sewing his wild oats."

Ugh. A better response would have been something like: "What our son did was wrong, but just because he cheated doesn't make us think he's a murderer." But they're so deep in denial they're in Egypt.

He really justified it that way?  Gross.  Although it's not like his son's demeanor was any better throughout the entire investigation and trial.  Neither one seems to be very good at reading and understanding social cues.  I still remain shocked that Scott called Amber after her press conference to congratulate her on a job well done and was praising how she handled herself.  Sweet Jesus.

[kitkat68]

 When the "SPA" team was at the location where Conor's body washed up they placed some flowers as a memorial for him. They kept stating "This is for Connor" or what not. They never mentioned Laci. So did they not want to remember or memorialize her? Just Connor? Because Scott cheated on her, did they make her irrevelant? This pisses me off even more.

[funky-rat]

9 hours ago, kitkat68 said:

 When the "SPA" team was at the location where Conor's body washed up they placed some flowers as a memorial for him. They kept stating "This is for Connor" or what not. They never mentioned Laci. So did they not want to remember or memorialize her? Just Connor? Because Scott cheated on her, did they make her irrevelant? This pisses me off even more.

YES!  I was practically yelling at the TV "What about Laci???  DO YOU NOT CARE???".  Then they mention her at the end, almost as an afterthought.  Mr. Funky doesn't have much interest in this because he didn't follow the case originally, and he feels the presentation is too one-sided, but I did tell him before this aired, that I'm confident his innocence team is all women.  Called it!

[Jillybean]

I could hardly watch this episode because it was alternately ridiculous and infuriating. Other than Scott's sister and SIL, the "SPA Team" just seems like a bunch of women with no lives who have devoted themselves to proving the innocence of a complete stranger. 

Did I misunderstand, or would this show have me believe that it's possible that some burglars (or some gang of killers) kidnapped Laci, held her for 10 days, then killed her and dumped her body in the bay on or after January 3??

This show should not have been called "The Murder of Laci Peterson." It should have been "The Wrongful Conviction of Scott Peterson" or something along those lines. The show was all about Scott, not Laci.

Edited September 21, 2017 by Jillybean

[funky-rat]

1 hour ago, Jillybean said:

I could hardly watch this episode because it was alternately ridiculous and infuriating. Other than Scott's sister and SIL, the "SPA Team" just seems like a bunch of women with no lives who have devoted themselves to proving the innocence of a complete stranger. 

Did I misunderstand, or would this show have me believe that it's possible that some burglars (or some gang of killers) kidnapped Laci, held her for 10 days, then killed her and dumped her body in the bay on or after January 3??

This show should not have been called "The Murder of Laci Peterson." It should have been "The Wrongful Conviction of Scott Peterson" or something along those lines. The show was all about Scott, not Laci.

It seems that way.  They're still saying she came out, confronted the burglars, they either threatened her or kidnapped her (depending on who you listen to), someone claims they saw people dragging a pregnant woman into a van after she had been let out to pee (huh???), and they apparently held her for a good 10 days, then delivered the baby, tied rope around his neck, used a piece of electrical tape to pin back one of his ears, and dumped them both.  Supposedly, one of the burglars was overheard on prison phones having someone mentioning Laci to them, and them saying "SHUT UP!  Someone may be listening!".  Also, that same person supposedly said he didn't know anything about the pregnant chick when he was arrested, and that's supposedly damning.  No, that case was all over the TV, and he had to know she disappeared from across the street from where he was, and I'm sure he didn't want it pinned on him.  Same with the phone conversation.  He probably didn't want to get drug in to this.  I don't buy she confronted the burglars, and they'd kidnap her, hold her, deliver the baby ,and kill them both.  Waaaay too complicated.

[LadyArcadia]

"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." - Sherlock Holmes

Theory 1: A pregnant woman confronted several burglars, on her own, without calling the police.  They subsequently kidnapped her, but first let her pee.  They held her for several days then saw a news report about her disappearance and dumped her in the same bay that her husband was fishing in.

Theory 2: A satanic cult is hunting down pregnant women, cutting out their babies and dumping their bodies in the bay.

Theory 3: A cheating husband who previously made statements that his wife was dead killed her and dumped her in the bay.

Although it's a high-level summary, that is about it, right?

[scootterp]

Long time lurker, first time poster.  I live in the Central Valley and the re-creation of Laci walking the dog on Christmas eve morning, in a light long sleeve t-shirt, no way.  It's freezing and foggy that time of year.  She would have been wearing a serious winter coat, especially in the drizzly/foggy mornings.  I think these people who claim they saw her walking the dog could have been seeing someone with similar looks, all bundled up.