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 9
Booth

Scott Peterson was innocent

1,253 posts in this topic

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.

Right... :w00t::unsure2: oh wait, you're serious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right... :w00t::unsure2: oh wait, you're serious.

Not getting the joke. . .if there is one. . .I hate being out of the loop. . .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Laci was cut to pieces and there's no blood to be found (except his).

The torso was recovered; the head was missing from the body.

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.

In my opinion, nobody but a sociopath could have lied the way he did to multiple people about multiple things and behaved the way he did not just leading up to the disappearance of his 8-month pregnant wife, but afterward.

Edit: I want to emphasize, especially afterward...

He lied about his alibi and what Laci was doing when he left that morn.. He told at least two independent people (one was a neighbor) he'd been golfing on the 24th...and he told Laci's mother that the last time he'd seen Laci that she was in the bathroom curling her hair. He said he left the house that morning at 9:30, but his cell record showed he'd made a call from somewhere near his home shortly after 10:00.

(Btw, their dog was found by a neighbor about 10 minutes after that cell call. Also, the weather was wet, drizzly and cold and so it didn't make sense to Laci's mother that she'd curl her hair and then walk the dog in such weather...)

Anyway, later, his story was that Laci was mopping the floor when he left...

Edited by regi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Exactly, everything that has been used to convict him only condemns him as a jerk and a horrible husband. There is nothing that proves he murdered her, physically moved her, and dumped her body.

For instance, everyone here KNOWS I'm a psychopath, but despite the efforts of 17 prosecutors in 10 states and over 30 depositions, I'm still not technically a "murderer" or a "cannibal."

All I'm asking of our Justice system is that before we condemn a person to death or life in prison, that we have a strong scientific basis (other than eye witness testimony) of that person's guilt.

The big problem I have about other people's interpretations of murder suspects is that its just so darn subjective. For example:

He showed no emotion when I told him or he showed so much emotion I thought it was all for show! We need a nationally defined level of tear shedding to be established. . .less than ten, guilty, greater than 100 guilty. . .so keep your emotions in check folks. . .otherwise your guilty.

He asked about the life insurance shortly after she died (seriously people, how long after a person is dead should you wait before asking about this? What delineates a person just trying to keep busy doing personal affairs and not breaking down as a mechanism to cope to someone who wanted the other person dead for the money? Seriously, how many days? weeks? years? have to pass before it's socially acceptable to ask when you can claim the life insurance on a person? Not withstanding the fact of impending massive costs for funeral arrangements adding to the stress of having a loved one taken from you plus having to actively consider each and every action you do from the moment of discovery so as not to appear as sinister or callous to other arbitrary outside observers. I want someone in authority to give me an actual figure and have it put into the laws and Constitution.)

He or she didn't go into the house to check up on them after being so worried about them. . .seriously, this was on a recent dateline, spoken by a police officer. . .now ask yourself. . .if something is seriously amiss, and your loved ones have not answered any of your calls, texts or other inquiries, and you fear the worst. . .do you honestly want to see what evil has been inflicted upon your loved ones? Maybe it's me, but I don't plan on putting crime scene photos in my albums just so I can reminisce with other family members all about the day great uncle ray was massacred. hey aunt edna. . .remember how his face looked? At least the part that was still attached to his body? Oh yeah, that'd be a real hoot. Heck, I don't even want to see my relatives after they've passed from natural causes. . .so even though I think something bad has happened. . .I'm not going into the house. . .guess that'll make me guilty too I suppose. . .can't possibly be because of my own inability to handle the unknown and death. . .nah. . .

Ever cheated during the relationship? Game over. You're done. Just confess to it and get it over with. The same if you are married to the person.

Want to stay safe?

1. Never get married.

2. Only interact with people on a minimalist basis.

3. Never engage in financial transactions with individuals

4. Never get insurance.

5. Lawyer up immediately anytime police ask you a question. Get pulled over. Ask to speak to your lawyer.

6. Implant a tracking device under your skin so that your whereabouts will always be maintained for the record (make sure the police only have access to these records via subpoena).

7. Never buy anything that can be used as a weapon or could kill someone.

8. Never speak to anyone about anything

9. Never leave your house.

10. Be prepared to kill yourself should the situation sours ever so slightly.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The man was in the police station the day after Laci's disappearance but on the phone with Amber telling her that he was in Maine with his family! He said he'd been duck hunting with his father the day before. (24th)

The point is, after the disappearance of his wife and unborn baby, he was able to carry on with Amber as though he was having the time of his life!

Other evidence is that he'd researched water currents in the San Francisco Bay before he'd even bought the boat. He bought the boat about a week later, the same day he told Amber that he'd had been married but "lost" his wife.

His in-laws didn't know about the boat, he'd kept in a warehouse. (Peterson later said that it was gonna be a surprise on Christmas.) Peterson wasn't a fisherman, but his father-in-law was and he fished often and usually from a location only 20 minutes from his home. He'd gone fishing with Peterson once previously and said it appeared to him that Peterson didn't know what he was doing. He gave Peterson a fishing pole that he never bothered to collect.

When asked about his alibi, Peterson couldn't say what kind of fish he was fishing for...

After the disappearance, but before the recoveries of the bodies, Peterson had made several trips to that marina....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The torso was recovered; the head was missing from the body.

More than the head was missing...

When a body is submerged in water, the water current pushes that body around, and in the process the body's limbs come into contact with various things under the water. This contact can fragment, or sever body parts; Lilly is correct and I do not disagree that this certainly can happen.

I am merely suggesting that the water may not have been the culprit this time. Although Laci's hands, feet, lower arm, etc. were missing and displayed the tell-tale signs of fragmenting underwater; her head was suspiciously severed. Laci's head was NOT dismembered in a way that one would typically expect (i.e., like her other limbs). This leads me to be suspicious about how her other limbs were severed too...

I'm not saying Scott DIDN"T do it, I'm wondering out loud about something suspicious, which would lead to reasonable doubt... if he had a decent lawyer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

More than the head was missing...

What I posted is all I know about the actual facts re: the condition of the body.

Edit: I want to add that a detective testified that a friend of Peterson's from college told him that Peterson had described to him how he'd dispose of a body, that he put a bag over the head and duct tape it around the neck and weight the body down and throw it into the sea.

Edited by regi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The guy is guilty. All the evidence points to it... at least, to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe he is guilty, thought so then and think so now.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Exactly. Conflicting eyewitness testimonies. It's hard to tell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

I get your point. No doubt. You think he is innocent plus you are saying that I have offered no evidence of murder.

I do have offered you many points to consider that really puts his innocence in jeopardy in my earlier posts.

Just because there is no evidence to be found for murder doesn't make him innocent of murder.

Do you have evidence to prove that he did not do this ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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.

I am not making this up. Below is the link I got my information from and information from this link is not only gathered from trial transcripts but also from newspaper articles, book publications, court testimonies & media broadcast on a daily basis.

LINK : https://petersoninfo.wordpress.com/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get your point. No doubt. You think he is innocent plus you are saying that I have offered no evidence of murder.

I do have offered you many points to consider that really puts his innocence in jeopardy in my earlier posts.

Just because there is no evidence to be found for murder doesn't make him innocent of murder.

Do you have evidence to prove that he did not do this ?

I think he's factually innocent, yes. If Scott did commit this murder, it sure didn't happen the way the prosecution claimed. The evidence presented at trial shows this. But with an attorney as poor as Geragos, a jury this obtuse, and the media influence, Scott didn't stand a chance.
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not making this up. Below is the link I got my information from and information from this link is not only gathered from trial transcripts but also from newspaper articles, book publications, court testimonies & media broadcast on a daily basis.

LINK : https://petersoninfo.wordpress.com/

As you've just illustrated, blogs, books, and media reports are not credible sources. Let's stick to the trial transcripts and evidence presented in court, as this is the only information the jury was allowed to consider. No witnesses ever testified to what you're claiming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get your point. No doubt. You think he is innocent plus you are saying that I have offered no evidence of murder.

I do have offered you many points to consider that really puts his innocence in jeopardy in my earlier posts.

Just because there is no evidence to be found for murder doesn't make him innocent of murder.

Do you have evidence to prove that he did not do this ?

See your mentality is what I have issue with. We cannot put people away if there is reasonable doubt. We just can't, you have to be sure, especially if they are on death row. Obviously the Jury must have seen or heard something to convince them, but your line of thought is so troubling to me.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think for some, there will always be what's considered to be a 'reasonable' doubt, but for others (maybe others like me), it's a 'no-brainer'.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think he's factually innocent, yes. If Scott did commit this murder, it sure didn't happen the way the prosecution claimed. The evidence presented at trial shows this. But with an attorney as poor as Geragos, a jury this obtuse, and the media influence, Scott didn't stand a chance.

To the bolded (my emphasis) statement, I agree 100% to this. Personally, I'm almost sure he did it (I have some reasonable doubt), but I don't think it went down the way they (i.e., police and prosecution) think. With a decent lawyer, he would have gotten off...not that I agree with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The man was in the police station the day after Laci's disappearance but on the phone with Amber telling her that he was in Maine with his family! He said he'd been duck hunting with his father the day before. (24th)

The point is, after the disappearance of his wife and unborn baby, he was able to carry on with Amber as though he was having the time of his life!

Other evidence is that he'd researched water currents in the San Francisco Bay before he'd even bought the boat. He bought the boat about a week later, the same day he told Amber that he'd had been married but "lost" his wife.

His in-laws didn't know about the boat, he'd kept in a warehouse. (Peterson later said that it was gonna be a surprise on Christmas.) Peterson wasn't a fisherman, but his father-in-law was and he fished often and usually from a location only 20 minutes from his home. He'd gone fishing with Peterson once previously and said it appeared to him that Peterson didn't know what he was doing. He gave Peterson a fishing pole that he never bothered to collect.

When asked about his alibi, Peterson couldn't say what kind of fish he was fishing for...

After the disappearance, but before the recoveries of the bodies, Peterson had made several trips to that marina....

Suspicious, yes, circumstantial. . .possibly. . .proof of murder. . .no. The whole lying to Amber thing, basically sounds like a guy trying to keep his side piece in the dark probably in the hopes that when the wife is found he could still hit both. Morally disgusting. . .yes. . .delusional. .. definitely. . .but again proof of murder? I'd say no. The computer searches, the boat thing, and the fact that he was actively pursing a hobby he was not familiar with are also not proof of murder. Furthermore, they could be explained with other, less sinister explanations. For example:

The search on the currents: well, I'm not much of a sailor so if they are too strong, I might not want to go there in case I get swept out to sea. .. or perhaps the currents would affect the fish population. . .

The whole bought the boat and the in laws didn't know about it, yeah, I'm sure if I cart blanche bought a boat for myself with a baby on the way cause I wanted to be a little selfish and buy myself an expensive toy, I sure as heck ain't telling the wife or her parents about it. Especially if I thought I was going to get heat for it.

The fact that he didn't know what type of fish he was fishing for. . .or that we wasn't proficient at fishing. . .well if he's starting the hobby as a mid life crisis thing. . .then perhaps he really doesn't know jack about anything or what type of fish he should have been fishing for. . .I've never fished my whole life, but I guess now I can't decide to start cause it will obviously mean I'm planning to murder someone. . .kinda sounds a little silly doesn't it?

The several trips: Well if the police were actively there and I knew they suspected me. . .I might go and see if they were trying to plant stuff. . .especially if I got the impression that they were not believing me. . .I'm sorry, but in this day and age, you can't trust the police. They'll shoot you in the back and then frame you for assault. . .There's video of this kind of stuff, so you know I'm not making this stuff up.

To the bolded (my emphasis) statement, I agree 100% to this. Personally, I'm almost sure he did it (I have some reasonable doubt), but I don't think it went down the way they (i.e., police and prosecution) think. With a decent lawyer, he would have gotten off...not that I agree with that.

Exactly, there was no proof of actual murder. . .and if Gregaros had been competent, he would have gotten off because the police had jumped the gun on charging him. I knew Mr. Peterson's defense was in deep trouble the instant Gregaros stood up in court and gleefully declared the defense rested. . .only to say seconds later. . .Just kidding! Seriously, how did Gregaros not lose his license then and there? It was so garishly unprofessional and basically demonstrated that Mr. Peterson did not have appropriate representation.

That moment alone should have granted him a new trial. . .surprised it hasn't. . .

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As you've just illustrated, blogs, books, and media reports are not credible sources. Let's stick to the trial transcripts and evidence presented in court, as this is the only information the jury was allowed to consider. No witnesses ever testified to what you're claiming.

As you've just illustrated, blogs, books, and media reports are not credible sources. Let's stick to the trial transcripts and evidence presented in court, as this is the only information the jury was allowed to consider. No witnesses ever testified to what you're claiming.

For the record, you claimed I was making this up earlier. I did not. Sometimes evidence of any sort does not make it to court simply because it was dismissed because of the way it was obtained or because defence fought hard to keep it out of court or because witnesses are found not credible enough. That does not make the evidence untrue. You claim boldly that Peterson is innocent. I simply disagree.

You have not stated one single piece of evidence that proves that Peterson was indeed innocent besides the fact that the evidence that was offered was not enough for a conviction of murder.

Meanwhile a jury of 12 people unanimously found him guilty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See your mentality is what I have issue with. We cannot put people away if there is reasonable doubt. We just can't, you have to be sure, especially if they are on death row. Obviously the Jury must have seen or heard something to convince them, but your line of thought is so troubling to me.

I totally agree and I think that I have the same "mentality" as you do in this case.

I think you misunderstood my comments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I now feel that I have a good idea of the sex of multiple posters contributing to this thread. The problem is Peterson was good looking and a percentage (largely female) of the population find it hard to accept guilt because of that fact.

Look at Jodi Arias, guilty as sin but one idiot on that jury gave her a pass because of her looks. Look at Casey Anthony. Good Lord that jury let her WALK !

Edited by Vincennes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Empty post

Edited by Vincennes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I now feel that I have a good idea of the sex of multiple posters contributing to this thread. The problem is Peterson was good looking and a percentage (largely female) of the population find it hard to accept guilt because of that fact.

Look at Jodi Arias, guilty as sin but one idiot on that jury gave her a pass because of her looks. Look at Casey Anthony. Good Lord that jury let her WALK !

If that is at all referring to me, because that would be really upsetting to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the record, you claimed I was making this up earlier. I did not. Sometimes evidence of any sort does not make it to court simply because it was dismissed because of the way it was obtained or because defence fought hard to keep it out of court or because witnesses are found not credible enough. That does not make the evidence untrue. You claim boldly that Peterson is innocent. I simply disagree.

What I said was: you either made it up or heard it from someone who did. The prosecution never argued that Scott made two trips to the marina. Do you have a police report naming these witnesses or their claims? A sworn affidavit? Again, what you read on someone's blog is not necessarily credible, and it's certainly not evidence. We can't have a reasonable discussion if you expect me to respond to every claim made on the internet about this case. Let's stick to what was presented to the jury.
You have not stated one single piece of evidence that proves that Peterson was indeed innocent besides the fact that the evidence that was offered was not enough for a conviction of murder.

Meanwhile a jury of 12 people unanimously found him guilty.

The evidence being insufficient is precisely what makes him factually innocent! Specifically, the most compelling piece of evidence is Connor's body. A length of plastic twine was tied tightly around his body with multiple knots. If, as the prosecution claimed, Scott dumped a pregnant Laci in the Bay, how did that happen?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can see where there might be doubts. Since some of the evidence is spotty. But I also remember when this happened and my gut also tells me he is guilty.

He was a real piece of crap overall. And I can't say that I'm sorry if he has been falsely accused.

2 people like 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 9

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.