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

1,266 posts in this topic

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 !

Well for the record, I'm a man. But if you're suggesting that women in general are less capable of applying reason or objectivity to a case with an attractive defendant, I don't think that's fair, and you should retract it. And anecdotally, whenever discussing this case, I've found it is women who are the most convinced of his guilt.
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

No, I wasn't specifically referring to you. I actually didn't remember which way your posts were going when I posted. I was mostly referring to those that don't indicate if they are male or female but I think it does end up being a part of everyone's basic psychological tendencies. I heard one of the TV judges talk about it during the Arias trial. A couple of CNN commentators asked him which way he thought the trial would go and he responded, "I'm retiring next year, so I can say this. She's not going to get the death penalty, I can tell you that. Because she's good looking. Juries don't send a good looking woman to death row." And guess what, he was RIGHT. And every time you turn around now Jodi Arias is getting some special privilege even though she got life w/o parole.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Well for the record, I'm a man. But if you're suggesting that women in general are less capable of applying reason or objectivity to a case with an attractive defendant, I don't think that's fair, and you should retract it. And anecdotally, whenever discussing this case, I've found it is women who are the most convinced of his guilt.

I just referred to this again in the above post and, no, I won't retract it at all. If you noticed I referred not only to Peterson but also to Arias and Anthony. So I'm saying that it occurs with both men and women.

Edited by Vincennes
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just referred to this again in the above post and, no, I won't retract it at all. If you noticed I referred not only to Peterson but also to Arias and Anthony. So I'm saying that it occurs with both men and women.

Well, you weren't referring to the defendant, but to the population, and you said "largely female". That's what you said.

You also said that you now have a good idea of what some particular posters' sex may be. What is that based on, beyond our position in this case? Nothing. You presume women will blindly believe Scott innocent, and that it's based solely on his looks. Again, I think that's an unfair presumption.

1 person likes this

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.

Exactly how I felt. He didn't react anything like he ever expected her to be found alive was my main problem.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Well, you weren't referring to the defendant, but to the population, and you said "largely female". That's what you said.

You also said that you now have a good idea of what some particular posters' sex may be. What is that based on, beyond our position in this case? Nothing. You presume women will blindly believe Scott innocent, and that it's based solely on his looks. Again, I think that's an unfair presumption.

Okay, I said that. I guess the reason that I said that was that most of my conversations re. Scott Peterson have been with women but as I said above, the examples that I gave, and purposefully gave, represented both men and women. My comment re. a good idea of the sex of unidentified posters was because this thread is about Scott Peterson a male and actually I meant that quite light heartedly.

As to what I "presume" it's definitely not all women will blindly give Scott Peterson as innocent solely based on his looks. Did he receive more of an edge in benefit of doubt, yes, as did Casey Anthony and Jodi Arias.

Please don't twist my words and then declare what you come up with "unfair."

Edited by Vincennes
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, I said that. I guess the reason that I said that was that most of my conversations re. Scott Peterson have been with women but as I said above, the examples that I gave, and purposefully gave, represented both men and women. My comment re. a good idea of the sex of unidentified posters was because this thread is about Scott Peterson a male and actually I meant that quite light heartedly.

As to what I "presume" it's definitely not all women will blindly give Scott Peterson as innocent solely based on his looks. Did he receive more of an edge in benefit of doubt, yes, as did Casey Anthony and Jodi Arias.

Please don't twist my words and then declare what you come up with "unfair."

Well, I didn't claim you said "all women". As to receiving the benefit of doubt, I'm just not sure how you could see that. Scott was presumed guilty from day one in the media, and after Amber surfaced, absolutely pilloried. Every move he made was scrutinized and assigned some nefarious motive. And honestly, it seemed as though the female talking heads were the ones most adamant about it(i.e. Nancy Grace). As we're discussing, there was a dearth of evidence in this case, yet this jury(half women) not only found him guilty(and quite quickly once the foreman left), but sent him to death row. I don't see where Scott was ever given the benefit of doubt by men or women.

Just reading through the thread so far will reveal this. Rather than examining the evidence, many are convinced he's guilty only because he "didn't act right" or because he was a cad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me, his behavior demonstrates his antisocial personality- his ability to compartmentalize his emotions- and so in this case, his capability of having committed the murder, but it's the overwhelming incriminating circumstances (too many to mention and some I've forgotten, here about 15 years later and haven't seen mentioned in this thread) which showed me that he's guilty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I said was: you either made it up or heard it from someone who did.

he 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.

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?

I think we are running in circles here. See my post # 44, not going to repeat myself.

And didn't Dr. Brian Peterson not claimed or believed that the 1½ loops of plastic tape around Conner’s neck was ocean debris ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we are running in circles here. See my post # 44, not going to repeat myself.

And didn't Dr. Brian Peterson not claimed or believed that the 1½ loops of plastic tape around Conner’s neck was ocean debris ?

No need to repeat yourself, only to respond to what I asked. Do you have any official document to show where these witnesses reported these claims? No, you don't. And that being so, they have no place in this discussion. Again, let's stick to what was presented at trial.

Dr. Peterson made no determination as to when the plastic twine was placed on Connor's body or how it came to be tied. It was outside his area of expertise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me, his behavior demonstrates his antisocial personality- his ability to compartmentalize his emotions- and so in this case, his capability of having committed the murder, but it's the overwhelming incriminating circumstances (too many to mention and some I've forgotten, here about 15 years later and haven't seen mentioned in this thread) which showed me that he's guilty.

Case in point. Everyone suddenly became a park bench psychiatrist in this case and decided Scott was a"psychopath", or a "narcissist" with "antisocial personality". Based on what exactly? A couple of TV interviews? Seriously?

And let's examine his "capability". The prosecution couldn't find a single person to testify that Scott had ever show any violent tendencies, that he had ever even been in a fight before. No one had ever seen him so much as raise his voice to Laci. But suddenly it's everyone's opinion that Scott was fully capable of committing a double murder.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ I wouldn't expect such testimony and I certainly wouldn't need it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ I wouldn't expect such testimony and I certainly wouldn't need it.

Yes, I know, and that's my point exactly. Why consider facts when you have conjecture and speculation? They're a lot more entertaining. What value does sworn testimony from an uninterested witness have versus the hysterical ramblings of Nancy Grace? Probably nothing to you. And, beyond the victims, therein lies the tragedy of this case.
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since everyone is playing armchair psychologist ill join in. Mainly to play Devils Advocate. I think part of the reason Scott doesn't seem that believable to people in his remorse is that maybe he just isn't that upset that she was murdered. Maybe he was unhappy being married to her, wasn't looking forward to this kid, and maybe felt relief at her death. That is awful to imagine, but there are plenty of people out there who just don't have apathy for others. What made me think of this was the movie Gone Girl that was obviously solely inspired off this case. Ben Affleck just isn't upset that his wife is missing, because he hates her. Now, I am not saying Laci was ANYTHING like the wife in Gone Girl. By all accounts she was a wonderful person who only deserved happiness in this world. I am just saying that maybe he just didn't care about Laci.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No need to repeat yourself, only to respond to what I asked. Do you have any official document to show where these witnesses reported these claims? No, you don't. And that being so, they have no place in this discussion. Again, let's stick to what was presented at trial.

Dr. Peterson made no determination as to when the plastic twine was placed on Connor's body or how it came to be tied. It was outside his area of expertise.

Those witnesses reported these claims to the police & media. (See the following link of a web site that believe Scott Peterson was innocent. They even acknowledge these witnesses existed and indeed made those claims). http://www.pwc-sii.com/Timeline/missing.htm

But I understand that you want to stick to what was presented at trial. A trial that lasted almost 6 months with a jury of 12 people that unanimously found him guilty and sentenced him to dead.

The transcripts of the court room testimony shows clearly that Dr. Brian Peterson claims the plastic tape or twine to be debris.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I know, and that's my point exactly. Why consider facts when you have conjecture and speculation? They're a lot more entertaining. What value does sworn testimony from an uninterested witness have versus the hysterical ramblings of Nancy Grace? Probably nothing to you. And, beyond the victims, therein lies the tragedy of this case.

When it comes right down to it, public opinion did not convict him. There is no reason to chastise people for having an opinion.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

What value does sworn testimony from an uninterested witness have versus the hysterical ramblings of Nancy Grace?

I wouldn't find it unusual if there wasn't a hx. of violence.

Edited by regi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those witnesses reported these claims to the police & media. (See the following link of a web site that believe Scott Peterson was innocent. They even acknowledge these witnesses existed and indeed made those claims). http://www.pwc-sii.c...ne/missing.htm

Well then explain why that wasn't presented at trial? If Scott made a late-night trip somewhere on the night in question, shouldn't the jury have been made aware of that? Honestly, this raises more questions about the police and the prosecutor than it does Scott.
But I understand that you want to stick to what was presented at trial. A trial that lasted almost 6 months with a jury of 12 people that unanimously found him guilty and sentenced him to dead.

The transcripts of the court room testimony shows clearly that Dr. Brian Peterson claims the plastic tape or twine to be debris.

During questioning, the assistant Prosecutor(David Harris) characterized the twine as debris, which Dr. Peterson did not challenge. He(Dr. Peterson) did not offer any opinion as to where the twine came from, how it got around Conner's body, or how it came to be tied in two separate knots. Bearing in mind that Scott supposedly dumped a pregnant Laci into the Bay, if you can offer a reasonable explanation for this, I'll call Scott guilty and buy you a drink.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't read that whole page, but I skimmed through down to the 'Police Theory' part where I'd like to comment. First, I don't think the police believed there were two trips to the marina. Now they might have investigated that as a possibility, but it wasn't what they finally concluded. Second, as for an alibi, the police concluded that his original alibi was that he'd been golfing and the reason they concluded that is because 1) that's what he'd initially told people, and 2) nobody knew he'd even had a boat.

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 !

With Arias there was plenty of evidence to show that she was at the scene of the murder (photos, etc.) and committed the crime. She even later admitted that she did it, all the jury had to believe was her story about it being self defense. . .or ninjas. . .or what not. . .and then there was evidence of her covering her tracks. . .fairly obvious evidence. . .

With Anthony. . .kinda think it was like Peterson's. . .lots of theory. . .not a lot of direct ties to the crime. . .in fact the jury, following the letter of the law, was so upset because the prosecution just didn't have anything to prove a murder. . .child abuse and corpse abuse maybe. . .but not murder. . .I do think they cops jumped the gun on charging her too. . .they should have given her a long leash. . .wait a few years. . .and then when she does slip up and gives up the smoking gun. . .you let her hang herself.

Edited by timewarrior

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the link thedutchiedutch (http://www.pwc-sii.com/Timeline/missing.htm) previously supplied: "4 very credible witnesses were sure they saw Laci and McKenzie in the same area on the morning of December 24 around 10 a.m."

Each of the four witnesses were independent, they didn't know each other, they were not in the same area, but they all called the police tipline. They stated that the police never got back to them. One witness, Gene Pedrioli, called twice.

Another person saw Laci around 10-10:30 AM. Again, from the linked website: "Vivian Mitchell, who lives on Buena Vista Avenue roughly 10 blocks from the Peterson home and about three-quarters of a mile from the Maldonado sighting, told police that she saw Peterson walk by between 10 and 10:30 a.m. Dec. 24. Her husband, Bill, also saw Laci and McKenzie."

During this time, Scott was on his phone (10:08 AM) and from 10:30-10:56 Scott was on his work computer to "visit a website for instructions on how to assemble the mortiser he had just purchased on eBay". So, here is an honest question, one I really don't have an answer for: Does this sound like a person who has just killed their wife?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the link thedutchiedutch (http://www.pwc-sii.c...ine/missing.htm) previously supplied: "4 very credible witnesses were sure they saw Laci and McKenzie in the same area on the morning of December 24 around 10 a.m."

Each of the four witnesses were independent, they didn't know each other, they were not in the same area, but they all called the police tipline. They stated that the police never got back to them. One witness, Gene Pedrioli, called twice.

Another person saw Laci around 10-10:30 AM. Again, from the linked website: "Vivian Mitchell, who lives on Buena Vista Avenue roughly 10 blocks from the Peterson home and about three-quarters of a mile from the Maldonado sighting, told police that she saw Peterson walk by between 10 and 10:30 a.m. Dec. 24. Her husband, Bill, also saw Laci and McKenzie."

But they don't want to hear about that. It doesn't fit their "Scott is a narcissistic, psychopathic killer and I don't need evidence because I just know" mentality. I mean, after all, Nancy Grace said he was guilty!
During this time, Scott was on his phone (10:08 AM) and from 10:30-10:56 Scott was on his work computer to "visit a website for instructions on how to assemble the mortiser he had just purchased on eBay". So, here is an honest question, one I really don't have an answer for: Does this sound like a person who has just killed their wife?
Precisely. And let's consider all of this in perspective. While Scott was spending the better part of an hour casually checking/responding to his emails, looking up instructions for and assembling the mortiser, Laci and Conner were supposedly rotting in the boat, waiting for transport!!! Do these sound like the actions of a first-time killer? Or any killer?

Oh, and what did the police find when they went to the warehouse later that night? A partially assembled mortiser!

Everything Scott told the police about what he did that day was supported by the evidence and shown to be true.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Well then explain why that wasn't presented at trial? If Scott made a late-night trip somewhere on the night in question, shouldn't the jury have been made aware of that? Honestly, this raises more questions about the police and the prosecutor than it does Scott.

Well, my guess would be that some might not have been found credible enough by the prosecution to upheld in court and some was thrown out because of a motion of dismissal by the defence.

(for example the testimony of of Detective Brocchini was thrown out of court).

During questioning, the assistant Prosecutor(David Harris) characterized the twine as debris, which Dr. Peterson did not challenge. He(Dr. Peterson) did not offer any opinion as to where the twine came from, how it got around Conner's body, or how it came to be tied in two separate knots.

Harris asked Dr. Brian Peterson if he observed any debris or anything associated with the body and Dr. Peterson mentions the plastic tape around the neck of Conner

which he found not suspicious because it had not caused damage to the neck.

And Dr. Peterson adds "And, in fact, my opinion was and is that it was simply debris that had become associated with the body"

Dr. Peterson also explains that the tape or twine did not cause strangulation or hanging, again because it did not cause any damage to the body and therefore he concluded it must have been debris.

You can find the original transcript here : http://pwc-sii.com/C...Brian-Trial.htm

Bearing in mind that Scott supposedly dumped a pregnant Laci into the Bay, if you can offer a reasonable explanation for this, I'll call Scott guilty and buy you a drink.

Not sure what you mean with this but I'll take you up on that drink :)

Edited by thedutchiedutch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When it comes right down to it, public opinion did not convict him. There is no reason to chastise people for having an opinion.

I'm not so sure that's true. I think it's likely that the media polluted the minds of the jury pool as they did most of the public.

I didn't chastise anyone. I have no qualms with those who have opinions that differ from my own. But criminal trials should not be decided based on personal opinions of the defendant, they should be determined by the facts presented. Like many, my opinion is that Scott was a bad husband, but based on the evidence, he wasn't a killer.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

From the link thedutchiedutch (http://www.pwc-sii.c...ine/missing.htm) previously supplied: "4 very credible witnesses were sure they saw Laci and McKenzie in the same area on the morning of December 24 around 10 a.m."

Each of the four witnesses were independent, they didn't know each other, they were not in the same area, but they all called the police tipline. They stated that the police never got back to them. One witness, Gene Pedrioli, called twice.

Another person saw Laci around 10-10:30 AM. Again, from the linked website: "Vivian Mitchell, who lives on Buena Vista Avenue roughly 10 blocks from the Peterson home and about three-quarters of a mile from the Maldonado sighting, told police that she saw Peterson walk by between 10 and 10:30 a.m. Dec. 24. Her husband, Bill, also saw Laci and McKenzie."

During this time, Scott was on his phone (10:08 AM) and from 10:30-10:56 Scott was on his work computer to "visit a website for instructions on how to assemble the mortiser he had just purchased on eBay". So, here is an honest question, one I really don't have an answer for: Does this sound like a person who has just killed their wife?

My point of this link to these witnesses was simply to prove that I did not made this up. The OP claimed earlier that I either made it up or heard it from someone who did. (the existence of the witnesses).

Whether they are credible or not has nothing to do with the point I was making.

Edited by thedutchiedutch

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.