Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 7
Booth

Scott Peterson was innocent

650 posts in this topic

Despite the quality of his representation, the bulk of the evidence presented in his case exonerated Peterson. He was certainly guilty of having an affair and lying about it, but there remains an almost complete absence of evidence that he murdered Laci and Connor. I'm still convinced that this case is coming back, and surprised that it hasn't yet. I really think the jury got this one wrong. What do you guys think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope he is innocent but I feel he was very much guilty .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Closed for me too. And I'm sure the jury had access to things that weren't released in the media as well

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Me as well. He is most certainly guilty and I believe justice was served.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I seem to recall there was DNA evidence in the house and in a small boat that Mr Peterson took "fishing" in the very location that the bodies of his wife and child later washed ashore. Also, there was testimony from the girlfriend (who didn't even know he had a wife) that was pretty damning. The jury had no problem finding him guilty and it's pretty evident that Mr Peterson is a psychopath of some type.

No evidence of a death in the house and no evidence of clean up. In the boat, they found a single hair which couldn't be matched to anyone. Beyond that, despite having 5 crime scenes to examine, they couldn't find any physical evidence to tie Scott to this crime.

The crime, as alleged by the prosecutor, would have taken all day and been very difficult to pull off, and yet, not a single eyewitness sees him doing anything suspicious.

To my knowledge, Scott has never been evaluated by a psychiatrist. I'm not one myself, so I'm in no position to call him a psychopath.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

No evidence of a death in the house and no evidence of clean up. In the boat, they found a single hair which couldn't be matched to anyone. Beyond that, despite having 5 crime scenes to examine, they couldn't find any physical evidence to tie Scott to this crime.

The crime, as alleged by the prosecutor, would have taken all day and been very difficult to pull off, and yet, not a single eyewitness sees him doing anything suspicious.

To my knowledge, Scott has never been evaluated by a psychiatrist. I'm not one myself, so I'm in no position to call him a psychopath.

Not entirely true. A comforter apparently stained with blood was among numerous pieces of evidence seized from Scott Peterson's home in the days after his pregnant wife vanished, a police detective testified.

Source : http://articles.lati...l/me-peterson13

Plus, how about the following behaviour, looks like he knew she would not be returning home.

(keep in mind that his wife and unborn child were missing, nobody knew they were dead yet)

So it seemed. except for scotty, because :

He subscribed to a pornographic television programs less than two weeks after his wife disappeared

He sold her vehicle and considered selling their home less than a month later

He stopped mail from being sent to the home

He used the bedroom they had converted into a nursery for storage

Furthermore about Scott being a psychopath. One of the biggest signs of a psychopath is a lack of remorse and empathy.

The jury spent almost six months listening to the prosecution and the defense in the Scott Peterson case.

After the death sentence was announced, several jurors talked to the media about their impressions of Peterson.

Here are some of their comments:

In the courtroom for the last six months, I didn’t see much emotion at all, said Michael Belmessieri. When I looked over there, it was a blank stare.

I still would have liked to see, I don’t know if remorse is the right word, said Steve Cardosi. He lost his wife and his child—it didn’t seem to faze him. And while that was going on … he’s romancing a girlfriend. That doesn’t make sense to me. At all.

We heard from him, said Richelle Nice. For me, a big part of it was at the end—the verdict—no emotion. No anything. That spoke a thousand words—loud and clear.

Edited by thedutchiedutch
6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe him to be guilty. From all the evidence and his actions I have no doubt of his killing his wife and unborn child.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not entirely true. A comforter apparently stained with blood was among numerous pieces of evidence seized from Scott Peterson's home in the days after his pregnant wife vanished, a police detective testified.

Source : http://articles.lati...rson13

2 tiny drops of blood on a comforter are not evidence of anything other than someone probably used it. It's no indication of a death in the house, let alone a murder.

Plus, how about the following behaviour, looks like he knew she would not be returning home.

(keep in mind that his wife and unborn child were missing, nobody knew they were dead yet)

So it seemed. except for scotty, because :

He subscribed to a pornographic television programs less than two weeks after his wife disappeared

He sold her vehicle and considered selling their home less than a month later

He stopped mail from being sent to the home

He used the bedroom they had converted into a nursery for storage

1)Signing up for the Playboy channel is hardly evidence of murder.

2)Scott's vehicles had been seized by LE and he needed a truck for work. What would you have him do? Regarding the house, you have to remember that Scott was being virtually stalked at his own home. Is it any wonder he would want to leave? And according to wiretaps, his other stated reason was that he didn't want Laci to come back to that house.

3) See #2. Surely you're not claiming that he only stopped Laci's mail?

4)Scott had vacated the warehouse and his storage locker was full. His house had no garage, so he stored a few items in the nursery. Maybe you think it was in poor taste, but this is not evidence that he killed anyone.

Furthermore about Scott being a psychopath. One of the biggest signs of a psychopath is a lack of remorse and empathy.

The jury spent almost six months listening to the prosecution and the defense in the Scott Peterson case.

After the death sentence was announced, several jurors talked to the media about their impressions of Peterson.

Here are some of their comments:

In the courtroom for the last six months, I didn’t see much emotion at all, said Michael Belmessieri. When I looked over there, it was a blank stare.

I still would have liked to see, I don’t know if remorse is the right word, said Steve Cardosi. He lost his wife and his child—it didn’t seem to faze him. And while that was going on … he’s romancing a girlfriend. That doesn’t make sense to me. At all.

We heard from him, said Richelle Nice. For me, a big part of it was at the end—the verdict—no emotion. No anything. That spoke a thousand words—loud and clear.

Ahhh yes, the infamous "he just didn't act right". If and when one of the jurors(or anyone else), as a qualified psychiatrist, evaluate Scott personally and make a determination that he's psychopathic, I'll consider that. Until then, it's just irresponsible speculation, and more importantly, not evidence of murder.

There may be a number of things that Scott said or did that raised your eyebrows, particularly told through a media eager to vilify him, but convictions require evidence

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's guilty as ****.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be honest, this case always bugged me. I always felt he was convicted more on the fact that he had an affair as opposed to any hard evidence against him for murder. He's a louse and cheated on his wife, so he MUST have killed her. . .it's just sooooo obvious. . .after all, anyone who has an affair ALWAYS murders their spouses. . .I mean Russ Faria had an affair that ended years before his wife was murdered, so it was heavily emphasized by the prosecution during his retrial. If only the judge in that trial could see the obvious connection. . .and properly found him guilty of murder instead of not guilty. I mean seriously, the nerve. . .he CHEATED. . .so he must have killed.

When this case broke the news, it was EVERYWHERE. . .including the location of where he was that day. It almost makes the argument that the bodies were dumped there to frame him somewhat plausible. . .the simple fact that the bodies were found where he said he was, just absolutely boggles my mind. What idiot would willing implicate himself as being in the exact spot where he dumped the bodies? It just doesn't make sense. He's either a complete idiot. . .or was actually framed by the real killer. . .

Gut instinct. . .he probably did it. . .but man. . .I really wish we had something stronger than just the fact that he cheated and lied and then went to elaborate means to prevent the whole thing from imploding in his face. It's basically being guilty because of moral reasons rather than actual fact.

So lesson of the day boys and girls. . .if you're stepping out on your loved ones. . .you better pray they don't get killed. . .cause getting a little on the side, no matter how meaningless it is to you. . .makes you a murderer by default.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gut instinct. . .he probably did it. . .

Well you say it's your "gut instinct" that tells you that but I think it's more accurate to say that you've applied common sense to what you know about all of the facts and circumstances of the case, don't you?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Well you say it's your "gut instinct" that tells you that but I think it's more accurate to say that you've applied common sense to what you know about all of the facts and circumstances of the case, don't you?

Common sense is neither common nor sensible. Nor do I intend to get into a tiff over a matter of semantics with an individual who wishes to remodel my thoughts to better suit their own personal view of the world.

As I tried to impart on my previous post, I feel that the only reason why Mr. Peterson was convicted was because he was an adulterer. The jury looked at his behavior and figured that they couldn't have possibly acted in such a way, or sought comfort elsewhere in their entire life, and decided cart blanche that he killed his wife and child.

In short, I have seen far STRONGER circumstantial cases than this one. The prosecution is asking us to believe that Mr. Peterson was able to commit a murder which resulted in very little physical evidence and yet was still stupid enough to tell everyone that he was up at the site where the bodies were found. He's both a master criminal and an idiot. . .a fantastic combination! And the reason we are supposed to believe this is because he's an immoral louse. Unacceptable.

What I want and need to see is HARD EVIDENCE: Blood or body fluids; indications of a body being in the trunk of his car; DNA evidence. .. receipts of questionable items purchased. . .proof that the items found on the bodies (for example trash bags, ropes, etc) came from Mr. Peterson's house. . .things like that. . .something that says with 100 percent certainty that his wife was killed by his hands and no one else could have done it. I ask now, like I asked then, where is the smoking gun?

When they initially charged Mr. Peterson, I honestly felt like they were jumping the gun and botching the entire case. After all that was reported in the news about what evidence had been found, I prayed that they had indeed found SOMETHING to tie him to this, only to find out during the trial that what they found was a mistress. . .whom he continued to string along after the fact. . .probably in hopes of being able to have his cake and eat it too. . .seriously?

In essence, he is convicted because he does not behave in the way we think he should behave. It is a fallacy that simply should not be allowed for the sake of justice. We must hold such convictions to a higher standard. How many others in this country have been convicted because they did not behave as they should have behaved, only to be exonerated decades later by real evidence such as DNA. If the police and prosecution fail to do their job properly either through incompetence of corruption and fail to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the guilt of a party, then they should be held accountable when said person is wrongfully convicted or a murderer is allowed to go free.

In regards to your question, here's what I mean by gut instinct:

1. I believe he definitely had the motive and the means to do such a crime. Motive in that yes he could have wanted to be with his mistress full time and means in terms that he was alone with his wife as married couples often find themselves and could have committed the crime.

2. Regarding his behavior, who am I to judge? I have done far worse things and generally hate interacting with the public in general. . .who can say if I am behaving in the appropriate manner when I scratch my behind with my right hand when others like to do it with their left? It's normal for me to use my right hand, but society says it must be the left. If I don't conform to society in one way then I must not conform in others and every murder that happens while I'm free is the result of my immoral behind scratching. So the behavior stuff. . .somewhat relevant, but should be taken with a grain of salt. . .

3. The lack of physical evidence is very disconcerting. . .

4. Despite the sheer idiocy of it all, if there is one thing Dateline tells us is that it's always the spouse. . .years of reports on DNA, the fact that the police are not complete idiots and science and stuff, and people are still trying to get away with killing their spouses. . .it's called divorce people. .. just rip it off like a band aid and get it over with. Sure it'll hurt. . .but it sure as heck beats prison. . .

In short, statistically he probably did it, he definitely had the means and motive to do it, and should not have been convicted on just behavior factors alone with little to no physical evidence to back it up. There was no statute of limitations on murder, and the longer a suspect is watched, the greater the likelihood he'll mess up and let something slip that will prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. . .my problem. . .is that the possibility for reasonable doubt still exists for me. . .and that troubles me. . .a lot. . .

Edited by timewarrior
5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, so I was mistaken that wasn't common sense... :w00t:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No evidence of a death in the house and no evidence of clean up. In the boat, they found a single hair which couldn't be matched to anyone. Beyond that, despite having 5 crime scenes to examine, they couldn't find any physical evidence to tie Scott to this crime.

The crime, as alleged by the prosecutor, would have taken all day and been very difficult to pull off, and yet, not a single eyewitness sees him doing anything suspicious.

To my knowledge, Scott has never been evaluated by a psychiatrist. I'm not one myself, so I'm in no position to call him a psychopath.

Here's an interesting article to read... http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hilden/20040720.html

I vaguely remember this trial. I had always thought there was a lot more damning evidence than a single hair on a boat. Laci was cut to pieces and there's no blood to be found (except his). This is a lot more intriguing than I initially thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do you think Mrs Peterson was "cut to pieces"? More likely she was strangled, weights attached to the body, placed in the boat, driven to the marina, once out at sea dumped overboard. The body washing up in pieces was likely due to decomposition and wave action causing portions of the body to fragment before coming ashore.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

[/url]

2 tiny drops of blood on a comforter are not evidence of anything other than someone probably used it. It's no indication of a death in the house, let alone a murder.

1)Signing up for the Playboy channel is hardly evidence of murder.

2)Scott's vehicles had been seized by LE and he needed a truck for work. What would you have him do? Regarding the house, you have to remember that Scott was being virtually stalked at his own home. Is it any wonder he would want to leave? And according to wiretaps, his other stated reason was that he didn't want Laci to come back to that house.

3) See #2. Surely you're not claiming that he only stopped Laci's mail?

4)Scott had vacated the warehouse and his storage locker was full. His house had no garage, so he stored a few items in the nursery. Maybe you think it was in poor taste, but this is not evidence that he killed anyone.

Ahhh yes, the infamous "he just didn't act right". If and when one of the jurors(or anyone else), as a qualified psychiatrist, evaluate Scott personally and make a determination that he's psychopathic, I'll consider that. Until then, it's just irresponsible speculation, and more importantly, not evidence of murder.

There may be a number of things that Scott said or did that raised your eyebrows, particularly told through a media eager to vilify him, but convictions require evidence

Well seems like your justification for him being innocent is that nobody ever proved that he is a psychopath.

You are missing the point here. Everything he did indicates that he knew Laci wasn't coming back.

Have you figured out why yet ?

Edited by thedutchiedutch
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This case is very interesting to me. And honestly, I don't know where I stand. I constantly play devils advocate, going back and forth. Most of the evidence is pretty circumstantial, that's what troubles me. When I see someone convicted, I want cold hard evidence. I feel like that is how it has to be for our justice system to be working best. I understand he was a disgusting cheater, and although that has been the motivation of some killers, that isn't the way it is for the bulk of cheaters. As Booth stated, no one saw him doing something suspicious. There were witnesses who saw her walking their dog, and the dog was later found unleashed. This suggests she was taken while walking the dog. Did Scott come scoop her up in the road? Didn't he have better access to killing her than that? Yet, they found her in the same area that he went boating, that is a serious coincidence if he didn't do it. Gah! So troubling!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This case is very interesting to me. And honestly, I don't know where I stand. I constantly play devils advocate, going back and forth. Most of the evidence is pretty circumstantial, that's what troubles me. When I see someone convicted, I want cold hard evidence. I feel like that is how it has to be for our justice system to be working best. I understand he was a disgusting cheater, and although that has been the motivation of some killers, that isn't the way it is for the bulk of cheaters. As Booth stated, no one saw him doing something suspicious. There were witnesses who saw her walking their dog, and the dog was later found unleashed. This suggests she was taken while walking the dog. Did Scott come scoop her up in the road? Didn't he have better access to killing her than that? Yet, they found her in the same area that he went boating, that is a serious coincidence if he didn't do it. Gah! So troubling!

Hi Rinna. The reason why no one saw him doing something suspicious is because he obviously was trying to prevent people from seeing him doing something suspicious.

However, in the early morning of December 24th, as early as 3am there are reports of several people claiming to have seen Scott driving his truck pulling his boat and he was spotted

by several people near the Berkely Marina between 6:30 and 7am. (the Berkely Arena is where Scott went boating and were they found Laci's remains).

In regards to the dog, McKenzie, here is a timeline of the morning of December 24th. when witnesses claimed to have spotted the dog with and without Laci :

Between 7:00 and 7:30am 2 different accounts of people claimed to have seen a dog with leash attached resembling McKenzie running around in the neighborhood

Between 9:30 and 10:30am 5 different accounts of people that claim to have seen Laci walking her dog

Between 10:10 and 10:17am McKenzie was found standing in the middle of the street, leash attached, by a neighbor and while returning the dog to the Peterson's

house she noticed the backyard's side gate wide open and closes it on her way out leaving the dog in the backyard

Source : https://petersoninfo.wordpress.com/2002-crime-dec-23-24/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Rinna. The reason why no one saw him doing something suspicious is because he obviously was trying to prevent people from seeing him doing something suspicious.

However, in the early morning of December 24th, as early as 3am there are reports of several people claiming to have seen Scott driving his truck pulling his boat and he was spotted

by several people near the Berkely Marina between 6:30 and 7am. (the Berkely Arena is where Scott went boating and were they found Laci's remains).

In regards to the dog, McKenzie, here is a timeline of the morning of December 24th. when witnesses claimed to have spotted the dog with and without Laci :

Between 7:00 and 7:30am 2 different accounts of people claimed to have seen a dog with leash attached resembling McKenzie running around in the neighborhood

Between 9:30 and 10:30am 5 different accounts of people that claim to have seen Laci walking her dog

Between 10:10 and 10:17am McKenzie was found standing in the middle of the street, leash attached, by a neighbor and while returning the dog to the Peterson's

house she noticed the backyard's side gate wide open and closes it on her way out leaving the dog in the backyard

Source : https://petersoninfo.wordpress.com/2002-crime-dec-23-24/

So now I'm even more confused about the dog. Did it get out, then Laci grabbed her, walked her, then the dog got out again?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well seems like your justification for him being innocent is that nobody ever proved that he is a psychopath.

You are missing the point here. Everything he did indicates that he knew Laci wasn't coming back.

Have you figured out why yet ?

I hardly think it's me missing the point. Whether he is a psychopath or not is immaterial to the case. It appears you missed the point, which I made no fewer than three times in my previous post, that what you've offered is not evidence of murder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Rinna. The reason why no one saw him doing something suspicious is because he obviously was trying to prevent people from seeing him doing something suspicious.

However, in the early morning of December 24th, as early as 3am there are reports of several people claiming to have seen Scott driving his truck pulling his boat and he was spotted

by several people near the Berkely Marina between 6:30 and 7am. (the Berkely Arena is where Scott went boating and were they found Laci's remains).

And you can point out in the trial transcripts where these witnesses claimed this? Of course not, because they don't exist. You are simply making all of this up, or getting it from someone else who did. The prosecution never argued any of this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This case is very interesting to me. And honestly, I don't know where I stand. I constantly play devils advocate, going back and forth. Most of the evidence is pretty circumstantial, that's what troubles me. When I see someone convicted, I want cold hard evidence. I feel like that is how it has to be for our justice system to be working best. I understand he was a disgusting cheater, and although that has been the motivation of some killers, that isn't the way it is for the bulk of cheaters. As Booth stated, no one saw him doing something suspicious. There were witnesses who saw her walking their dog, and the dog was later found unleashed. This suggests she was taken while walking the dog. Did Scott come scoop her up in the road? Didn't he have better access to killing her than that? Yet, they found her in the same area that he went boating, that is a serious coincidence if he didn't do it. Gah! So troubling!

But think about this: Why would Scott drive 90 minutes each way, past endless miles of farmland(which he would've been familiar with)to the busiest marina in northern CA to dispose of a body? Not only that, but he immediately hands over proof that he was there. Consider the risks of being seen by any number of people at the marina or on the water. A dead body(in full rigor no less) would be very difficult to hide, and this was a small boat.

Scott's alibi was broadcast on national media within 48 hours. Rather than coincidence, I think it's more likely the killer(s), knowing this, later dumped the bodies there.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 7

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.