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 5
Booth

Scott Peterson was innocent

565 posts in this topic

Yeah see don't watch them shows because i don't really care to hear about people like that. My neighbor on the other is different we always go back and fourth in this case because she thinks he is 100% guilty because he kept cheating on her. I always say that's your right but to base it on cheating almost everyone cheats. I go you did it to your hubby did you kill him? Of course she just looked at me. I nor you meaning my neighbor was not there so can't. Say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Paranormal Gal said:

Yeah see don't watch them shows because i don't really care to hear about people like that. My neighbor on the other is different we always go back and fourth in this case because she thinks he is 100% guilty because he kept cheating on her. I always say that's your right but to base it on cheating almost everyone cheats. I go you did it to your hubby did you kill him? Of course she just looked at me. I nor you meaning my neighbor was not there so can't. Say.

It's very unfortunate that Scott made the decision to cheat. Some men (and women too for that matter) don't take their vows concerning fidelity as serious as others. We're talking millions of people. I think often it's a sexual thing. Somebody wanting sex because they are not getting it at home for whatever reason. In this case I think Laci being in the later stages of pregnancy was likely limiting their sex life.

So yeah, the cheating was unfortunate, but we have to look at it in the context of murder. Does anybody really believe Scott had any intention of continuing his fling with Amber once life got back to normal with Laci? I don't, and the reason is because of all the lies Scott told Amber. There is just no way he could have kept that facade going with her for anything longer than short term. I think he planned to "break up" nicely and move on, thinking Amber would never know he basically used her for sex.

Then Scott's world completely changed when Laci went missing. Anyone who followed this case knows how quickly Scott was demonized in the media, and how the Amber fling took center stage. Everyone was hating Scott including Laci's family. None of us can imagine what that would be like. I bring that up because I think Scott became vulnerable to Amber's continued efforts to contact and befriend him because he was alone and a mess himself, and also felt a sense of guilt for the entire cheating "scandal". Little did he know Amber was acting as an agent for the police, and imo she could have won an academy award for her performance, but to Scott-- he was a vulnerable man whose life was in complete disarray. IMO that is the reason he continued contact with Amber after Laci went missing. He was also drinking heavily. I got that info from Anne Bird's book. I think it's significant and goes to some of the rambling Amber calls. 

IMO Amber did not have anything to offer as far as tying Scott to murder, and her testimony was far more prejudicial than probative. I don't think it should have been allowed. Then again, when you have police having an actual press conference about a "romantic relationship" the demonization began right there.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Comey2016 said:

It's very unfortunate that Scott made the decision to cheat. Some men (and women too for that matter) don't take their vows concerning fidelity as serious as others. We're talking millions of people. I think often it's a sexual thing. Somebody wanting sex because they are not getting it at home for whatever reason. In this case I think Laci being in the later stages of pregnancy was likely limiting their sex life.

So yeah, the cheating was unfortunate, but we have to look at it in the context of murder. Does anybody really believe Scott had any intention of continuing his fling with Amber once life got back to normal with Laci? I don't, and the reason is because of all the lies Scott told Amber. There is just no way he could have kept that facade going with her for anything longer than short term. I think he planned to "break up" nicely and move on, thinking Amber would never know he basically used her for sex.

Then Scott's world completely changed when Laci went missing. Anyone who followed this case knows how quickly Scott was demonized in the media, and how the Amber fling took center stage. Everyone was hating Scott including Laci's family. None of us can imagine what that would be like. I bring that up because I think Scott became vulnerable to Amber's continued efforts to contact and befriend him because he was alone and a mess himself, and also felt a sense of guilt for the entire cheating "scandal". Little did he know Amber was acting as an agent for the police, and imo she could have won an academy award for her performance, but to Scott-- he was a vulnerable man whose life was in complete disarray. IMO that is the reason he continued contact with Amber after Laci went missing. He was also drinking heavily. I got that info from Anne Bird's book. I think it's significant and goes to some of the rambling Amber calls. 

IMO Amber did not have anything to offer as far as tying Scott to murder, and her testimony was far more prejudicial than probative. I don't think it should have been allowed. Then again, when you have police having an actual press conference about a "romantic relationship" the demonization began right there.

Agree that's why i said i feel he is guilty but feelings can't make judgement. And it is sad that to many people cheat.i always believe if your not happy leave. But to say on a jury he is guilty there is no way i could do that. I was not there didn't witness anything.In cases like this it is hard thank God i never had to be on a jury. Bearing false witness is not something to mess with. Meaning people are going by what evidence they have but to say yes he did it without any hands on proof like weapon finger prints video ect.... You get what i am saying i just could not do it. Threw history many many people been convicted when they are innocent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Comey2016 said:

It's very unfortunate that Scott made the decision to cheat. Some men (and women too for that matter) don't take their vows concerning fidelity as serious as others. We're talking millions of people. I think often it's a sexual thing. Somebody wanting sex because they are not getting it at home for whatever reason. In this case I think Laci being in the later stages of pregnancy was likely limiting their sex life.

So yeah, the cheating was unfortunate, but we have to look at it in the context of murder. Does anybody really believe Scott had any intention of continuing his fling with Amber once life got back to normal with Laci? I don't, and the reason is because of all the lies Scott told Amber. There is just no way he could have kept that facade going with her for anything longer than short term. I think he planned to "break up" nicely and move on, thinking Amber would never know he basically used her for sex.

Then Scott's world completely changed when Laci went missing. Anyone who followed this case knows how quickly Scott was demonized in the media, and how the Amber fling took center stage. Everyone was hating Scott including Laci's family. None of us can imagine what that would be like. I bring that up because I think Scott became vulnerable to Amber's continued efforts to contact and befriend him because he was alone and a mess himself, and also felt a sense of guilt for the entire cheating "scandal". Little did he know Amber was acting as an agent for the police, and imo she could have won an academy award for her performance, but to Scott-- he was a vulnerable man whose life was in complete disarray. IMO that is the reason he continued contact with Amber after Laci went missing. He was also drinking heavily. I got that info from Anne Bird's book. I think it's significant and goes to some of the rambling Amber calls. 

IMO Amber did not have anything to offer as far as tying Scott to murder, and her testimony was far more prejudicial than probative. I don't think it should have been allowed. Then again, when you have police having an actual press conference about a "romantic relationship" the demonization began right there.

Excellent post, and very insightful. Scott shouldn't have pursued Amber, period. Yes, his wife was very pregnant, he wasn't getting much attention, etc. but he was wrong to cheat, we all agree, and he'd be the first to admit that. But as you asked, what does it mean in the context of Laci's presumed murder? Motive? Hardly. Amber was a single mother; how does being with Amber free Scott of the oppressive lifestyle that fatherhood was supposedly going to impose on him? What does she offer?

Most men would lie in order to spend more time with their mistress, but when you listen to the calls between Scott and Amber, you realize the vast majority of his lies were told in order to create false excuses as to why he couldn't see her. No one with half of a brain would think she was the motive. Even the prosecutor acknowledged that in his closing argument. Amber was just another tool manipulated to implicate Scott. They had no evidence, they had no case, so they used the media to demonize him. "Scott was in the Bay, and Laci's body was found in the Bay months later. He's a cheater, so he's a bad guy, he didn't act right, we couldn't find anyone else[though we didn't really try], so therefore he must've killed Laci". That was their case in a nutshell.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/30/2016 at 11:59 AM, timewarrior said:

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.

Regarding he/she didn't go to the house to check on them after being so worried, I can understand not wanting to walk in and find something you can never unsee, but couldn't he have asked the police to do a welfare check? I guess guilty people don't think of that.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/17/2017 at 8:53 AM, Future ghost said:

Regarding he/she didn't go to the house to check on them after being so worried, I can understand not wanting to walk in and find something you can never unsee, but couldn't he have asked the police to do a welfare check? I guess guilty people don't think of that.

Are you talking about the Peterson case?

Why would anyone expect Scott to go into an INSTANT panic when he came home and Laci wasn't there? He said his first thought was that she was at her mother's place. Who EXPECTS that their loved one has been murdered just because they are not home?

I think his actions go to consciousness of innocence. Instead of going into some immediate fake panic mode, he was realizing the events in real time. Worry started when he heard the message on the answering machine from Ron, then he realized she wasn't at her mothers. Real worry then set in and he began to look for Laci.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Comey2016 said:

Are you talking about the Peterson case?

Why would anyone expect Scott to go into an INSTANT panic when he came home and Laci wasn't there? He said his first thought was that she was at her mother's place. Who EXPECTS that their loved one has been murdered just because they are not home?

I think his actions go to consciousness of innocence. Instead of going into some immediate fake panic mode, he was realizing the events in real time. Worry started when he heard the message on the answering machine from Ron, then he realized she wasn't at her mothers. Real worry then set in and he began to look for Laci.

 

I was commenting on a post from Time Warrior who said an episode of Dateline mentioned that Scott didn't go into the house after "being so worried about them". This was apparently said by a police officer on Dateline. I didn't see that episode myself, so I can't say what information about the case was given, or where this statement fits into the timeline of the investigation. But if I was "so worried " about someone I would have the police enter the residence to spare myself from seeing something potentially gruesome that I would never be able forget. Unless that's where I had my murder kit hidden at the time and I didn't want the police to find it. But the more likely reason he didn't enter the home is because he already knew they weren't in there.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

23 hours ago, Future ghost said:

I was commenting on a post from Time Warrior who said an episode of Dateline mentioned that Scott didn't go into the house after "being so worried about them". This was apparently said by a police officer on Dateline. I didn't see that episode myself, so I can't say what information about the case was given, or where this statement fits into the timeline of the investigation. But if I was "so worried " about someone I would have the police enter the residence to spare myself from seeing something potentially gruesome that I would never be able forget. Unless that's where I had my murder kit hidden at the time and I didn't want the police to find it. But the more likely reason he didn't enter the home is because he already knew they weren't in there.

Scott arrived home that day between 4:30 and 4:45 p.m.; he went into the house.  So, what are you talking about?

Edited by Aftermath

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Aftermath said:

Scott arrived home that day between 4:30 and 4:45 p.m.; he went into the house.  So, what are you talking about?

Why don't you ask Time Warrior, since it was his post I was referring to. In that post he said there was an episode of dateline where a police officer said Scott did not enter the house. That's what I'm talking about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

2 hours ago, Future ghost said:

Why don't you ask Time Warrior, since it was his post I was referring to. In that post he said there was an episode of dateline where a police officer said Scott did not enter the house. That's what I'm talking about.

Well, I'm not going to ask Time Warrior because I understand what is being conveyed.  You, on the other hand, posted something very confusing.

 

Fine, I will inquire about this post below:

On 3/17/2017 at 8:53 AM, Future ghost said:

Regarding he/she didn't go to the house to check on them after being so worried, I can understand not wanting to walk in and find something you can never unsee, but couldn't he have asked the police to do a welfare check? I guess guilty people don't think of that.

Who are you talking about?  Scott Peterson?  Who is the she?  Laci?  Why in the world would Scott ask the police to do a welfare check and on whom?  Laci? What do you mean "walk in and find something you can never unsee"?  The house was empty.

Have you even read anything about this case?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Aftermath said:

 

Well, I'm not going to ask Time Warrior because I understand what is being conveyed.  You, on the other hand, posted something very confusing.

 

Fine, I will inquire about this post below:

Who are you talking about?  Scott Peterson?  Who is the she?  Laci?  Why in the world would Scott ask the police to do a welfare check and on whom?  Laci? What do you mean "walk in and find something you can never unsee"?  The house was empty.

Have you even read anything about this case?

Have you ever read any other posts except mine? If you did then it might make sense to you. The he/she is from a statement a police officer supposedly made on the show dateline, which I have admitted to not seeing. I also said that I don't know where this statement fits into the timeline of the investigation. All you have to do is scroll up and read the post I was commenting on, then it might make sense to you..

I do agree with you however that if that was the actual statement made by the officer, they should have been more clear as to whom they were referring. Since Laci was the one missing, it stands to reason that he was referring to Scott.

And, yes I did follow the case, but it was a long time ago. I also followed the O.J. Simpson case, and even watched the whole stupid trial on t.v..Same with the Casey Anthony trial. Watched the whole thing. But do I remember every minute detail of any of these cases? Of course not,does anyone?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Future ghost said:

But do I remember every minute detail of any of these cases? Of course not,does anyone?

I understand what you are saying. I've followed many cases through the years and once I quit following the case I too forget the details.

In the Peterson case, some of us are still following it pretty closely. Even though it's been over almost 15 years Scott's appeal is still in play and court documents continue to be filed. You can find them all at http://www.scottpetersonappeal.org/ 

Since I consider this an ongoing case, and feel confident that Scott will get a new trial, the new information that continues to come out is interesting. I'm very much looking forward to a second trial.

It's totally up to you if you choose to follow or not, but I can tell you just to clarify, on that Dateline quote-- that's some kind of mistake. There was never any point that Scott hesitated going into his own house. That's what caused the confusion, because it never happened in THIS case. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Comey2016 said:

I understand what you are saying. I've followed many cases through the years and once I quit following the case I too forget the details.

In the Peterson case, some of us are still following it pretty closely. Even though it's been over almost 15 years Scott's appeal is still in play and court documents continue to be filed. You can find them all at http://www.scottpetersonappeal.org/ 

Since I consider this an ongoing case, and feel confident that Scott will get a new trial, the new information that continues to come out is interesting. I'm very much looking forward to a second trial.

It's totally up to you if you choose to follow or not, but I can tell you just to clarify, on that Dateline quote-- that's some kind of mistake. There was never any point that Scott hesitated going into his own house. That's what caused the confusion, because it never happened in THIS case. 

Thanks for the update, and as I've said, I didn't see that Dateline episode so I was basing my comments on another post made by someone who did see the show. My mistake, I guess. Sorry for the confusion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Future ghost said:

Have you ever read any other posts except mine?

Nope...  you're the first post I have EVER read.  :hmm:

It was a comment on a post almost a year ago, hard to keep all of this straight.

 

17 hours ago, Future ghost said:

I do agree with you however that if that was the actual statement made by the officer, they should have been more clear as to whom they were referring. Since Laci was the one missing, it stands to reason that he was referring to Scott.

And, yes I did follow the case, but it was a long time ago. I also followed the O.J. Simpson case, and even watched the whole stupid trial on t.v..Same with the Casey Anthony trial. Watched the whole thing. But do I remember every minute detail of any of these cases? Of course not,does anyone?

I wasn't implying you should (i.e., "remember every minute detail of any of these cases") and I didn't mean to make you take a defensive posture either.  I apologize if how I responded was curt, it wasn't my intention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Aftermath said:

Nope...  you're the first post I have EVER read.  :hmm:

It was a comment on a post almost a year ago, hard to keep all of this straight.

 

I wasn't implying you should (i.e., "remember every minute detail of any of these cases") and I didn't mean to make you take a defensive posture either.  I apologize if how I responded was curt, it wasn't my intention.

There is absolutely no offense taken, and I accept your apology. I suppose it was my mistake for assuming an earlier post as the absolute truth, and causing mass confusion. Not my intention,nor was taking a defensive posture. I think I'll just go back to commenting on the Casey Anthony case, since I seem to remember more about that case. Plus , ID is going to have a special on that case. I think it starts on April 9th, if you're interested. Btw, I love good sarcasm, so your earlier response made me laugh, thanks.

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 5

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.