Was Scott Peterson innocent ?

[Guest brizink]

Even if he didn't kill her, (which I believe he did) he was a creepy sociopath anyway. It's obvious that he lacks the normal human range of human emotion and had no problem with Laci and her unborn child's deaths. Even IF he didn't do it, he's still clearly capable of murder (among other naughty behaviour) and as such should be separated from society anyway. Let's just be glad he doesn't have any kids to pass his gene set to. If indeed that plays any role in the psychological facets of a killer. Which I'm sure to some degree is the case. GUILTY!

[Comey2016]

2 hours ago, brizink said:

Even if he didn't kill her, (which I believe he did) he was a creepy sociopath anyway. It's obvious that he lacks the normal human range of human emotion and had no problem with Laci and her unborn child's deaths. Even IF he didn't do it, he's still clearly capable of murder (among other naughty behaviour) and as such should be separated from society anyway. Let's just be glad he doesn't have any kids to pass his gene set to. If indeed that plays any role in the psychological facets of a killer. Which I'm sure to some degree is the case. GUILTY!

It's frightening to me that people like you actually get on juries.

 

[Regi]

12 minutes ago, Comey2016 said:

It's frightening to me that people like you actually get on juries.

 

It's frightening to me that people like you actually get on juries.

[Regi]

On 8/29/2017 at 0:40 PM, Comey2016 said:

Excuse me, but where do you get off thinking you know how people FEEL? Someone you have never met. Did you know that Scott and Laci actively TRIED to get pregnant? Did you know he regularly attended her doctor visits? Did you know he hand made furniture for the baby's room and helped Laci decorate for a nautical theme? 

Again! Sexual infidelity does not = murderer. Nor does it mean the person doesn't love their spouse. Do some research! 

Astounding shallow arrogance when you really have no clue!

Here's a clue for those who actually need a clue: As he's expecting his first child, he's telling his mistress that he's thinking of having a vasectomy, and that he doesn't feel the need to have a biological child.

[Colt Storm]

Have the police ever brought in a profiler on this case? I have not kept up on this for a long time.

[Jackal_]

A few things...

How any one can say he definitely committed the crime is beyond me. There is factually 0 pieces of credible physical or forensic evidence that proves he did it. 

Love it or hate it, the justice system sides with the accused until enough evidence is offered to prove them guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. That did not happen in this case. In fact, the exact opposite happened which should have led to a not guilty verdict. 

The jury was about the most pathetic group of one sided, attention seeking, peer pressured groups I've ever seen on a criminal case. The only one doing their job was the original foreman who was literally threatened to vote guilty and went to the judge with this info. Instead of the judge dismissing the juror (#8), he did nothing and the foreman decided to leave on his own accord for his own safety. New juror Richelle Nice, a single mother with a clear hatred and agenda for cheaters, comes in and immediately says he's guilty without looking at lack of evidence. She has since been proven to be a liar, manipulator, and should honestly be jailed for lying during the Voir Dire. The other original "no guilty" juror eventually changed his mind because "what sane man would leave his 7.5 month wife pregnant on a whim for a fishing trip an hour or so away". Um what? That makes him a murderer? I went on a golf trip 6 hours away from my 8 month pregnant wife last minute knowing she had my mother in law with her or close by. Guess that means I'm a murderer or a psychopath? Justin Falconer was dismissed for a one off comment to Laci's brother that had nothing to do with the actual case. Juror #8 is left on the jury after physically intimidating other jurors who don't share the same thoughts as him and tells a bartender he's "going to get Scott" when determine life in prison or death. Yeah that seems fair.

The whole "he didn't show enough emotion" bit is so unbelievably ridiculous it doesn't even warrant diving into. Everyone shows emotions in different ways. As an accused you are instructed to not show emotions or it could be mis-viewed as being emotionally unstable. Even saying that there were eye witnesses in the courtroom who said they saw Scott physically emotional at certain times, tearing up, shaking, unable to look at the pictures of Laci's torso and his unborn son's body. 

The bodies of Laci and Conner were found in the same Bay where Scott was the day they disappeared. It took them several months, several expert divers, and several debunked theories that you can dump a 150lb body off of a 14 ft. boat (when you can't even dump a 100lb weight over the side of the same boat without tipping/capsizing it) before the bodies were actually found. You really think it's hard to imagine (if Scott didn't do it) that whoever did wouldn't understand Scott is the prime suspect and how easy it would be to dump her body at a later date to even further suspect Scott? Why would Scott incriminate himself to the point of telling police exactly where he was only to have dumped the bodies in the same spot. 

The theories are he killed her in their house, or his boat, or his truck, or at the warehouse, yet there is not even 1 piece of evidence that supports that. There is not 1 eyewitness that saw Scott with a tarp or doing anything suspicious. Yet he apparently did it the night before (proven innacurate thanks to eye witnesses and internet searches the following morning from Laci) or the morning of (because it's so easy to go unnoticed carrying a body in a tarp in the daylight). 

I do agree the defense should have put the eye witnesses on the stand to determine a better timeline. Yet they had already proven the prosecutors original theory wrong in that he killed her the night before when the prosecutors came out and said Laci was still alive the morning of the 24th. Again, how in the hell would Scott dispose of a body in broad daylight? Other witnesses who saw him at the marina say they never saw him dragging/carrying anything out of the ordinary and they certainly didn't see anything large in his boat taking off from the marina. So where was the body at that point? 

He never incriminated himself once in all the botched wiring attempts. He claimed his innocence to anyone/everyone when he had no idea others were listening. It's clear he is a cheating ******* and deserved to be shown in the media as such. Just because he's a terrible husband with a clear sex addiction doesn't mean he's a murderer. 

Did he do it or not? I honestly have no idea. But the physical/forensic evidence that is actually there all sides with Scott. The circumstantial evidence and what the media wanted points to Scott being guilty. I choose to believe factual/physical/forensics evidence over anything else and if I'm on the jury, there is no way in hell I say guilty beyond a reasonable doubt because there is no solid evidence to support it. 

[Regi]

1 minute ago, Jackal_ said:

Did he do it or not? I honestly have no idea.

If you don't know now, you never will, in other words, to you, this will always be a mystery.

[Regi]

20 minutes ago, Colt Storm said:

Have the police ever brought in a profiler on this case?

That's a last resort, right? I mean, why would they need to consult a profiler when they had actual evidence to follow?

According to testimony in the prelim, the tracking dog indicated that Laci left the home by foot. (The handler's testimony was that the dog kept going to the center of the road which indicated to her that Laci had left the home by vehicle, and as a result of that evidence, authorities performed a search of a river west of Modesto which included divers.)

Edit: The evidence of what the tracking dog indicated wasn't admitted at trial.

Edited September 13, 2017 by regi

[Regi]

53 minutes ago, Colt Storm said:

I have not kept up on this for a long time.

I'm curious, when were you last caught up?

Edited September 13, 2017 by regi

[Jackal_]

1 hour ago, regi said:

If you don't know now, you never will, in other words, to you, this will always be a mystery.

You are correct - just like everyone on here claiming without a shadow of a doubt that he is guilty will never truly know, thus making it a fictitious comment. None of us are seated in a position to be the judge, jury, or executioner, yet are on here and other forums saying what a monster he is when in all actuality we don't know and have 0 physical or forensic evidence to back it up. 

Truth is neither you nor I (nor anyone else) can say he's a murderer or he's innocent. What we can do is play advocate/devil's advocate and pitch our case on why he was rightfully or wrongfully committed of his crimes. 

[Colt Storm]

50 minutes ago, regi said:

I'm curious, when were you last caught up?

About five or six years ago, last I had heard his sister had come forward to say she believed he was guilty.

 

[Colt Storm]

This is the last I kept up on.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/7047103/ns/dateline_nbc/t/scott-petersons-sister-speaks-out/

[Regi]

1 hour ago, Jackal_ said:

You are correct - just like everyone on here claiming without a shadow of a doubt that he is guilty will never truly know, thus making it a fictitious comment.

Everyone on here? (Yeah, you sure don't see what I see! )

 

 

[Comey2016]

5 hours ago, regi said:

Here's a clue for those who actually need a clue: As he's expecting his first child, he's telling his mistress that he's thinking of having a vasectomy, and that he doesn't feel the need to have a biological child.

You remind me of Richelle Nice. 

Thankfully I am confident trial 2 will be nothing like trial 1.

[Sugarnspice]

Just now, rashore said:

Oh gosh, you don't need to shout. But since you bring those questions up, do you happen to have any sort of research or statistics to answer them?

Not shouting.  Using caps doesn't always mean that. I am not a shouting person. very laid back. I am referring to the many many men jailed or put to death over the years who were having a affair and there wife was killed, the hunt was over because of the affair.  How many of these men were innocent?  Men have affairs and flings when there young, it's just a fact of life.  Some wives never know, some do.  The point i was trying to make was that a affair does not make you guilty, and that was the only thing they had on Scott, and lots of people here condemn him because of this.

 

[Sugarnspice]

Just now, timewarrior said:

I'm confused.  Are you asking rhetorically with emphasis that an affair is not always the catalyst?   Or are you arguing in favor that the ONLY reason people kill wives is because they are getting some on the side?  

I'm not even going to point out the fact that because you quoted yourself in the post that you seem to be arguing with yourself on this matter, but just in case you are asserting that an affair is the only reason why wives get killed, let me give you my top ten list of why a husband will kill a wife:

10.  She's bad in bed.

9.  She destroyed something he loved

8.  He never loved her in the first D@mn place and is quite frankly just sick and tired of her.

7.  She burned dinner.

6.  She won't shut the hell up.

5.  She got pregnant against his will.

4.  She wants to leave or get a divorce and/or threatened to take the kids away.

3.  She knows too much about his business.

2.  Money b*tch!   Papa's gotta get paid!  Love that life insurance. . .know what I mean? 

1.  Cause it's fun to kill people.

Now you see, that's ten legitimate reasons why a person would kill his wife, that doesn't necessarily involve him wanting to be in another relationship with some side piece of @$$ that literally means less to him that the wife does (after all, he married the wife right?  she must be worth something to warrant that). 

Oh, and if the list offends you, well how about that?  I could make it more offensive if you so desire. . .truly the only reason why we don't kill each other over each and every little thing is fear of the repercussions and the concept of personal attachments. . .****, I'd kill someone for a Klondike bar. . .in fact, I murdered several dozen people last night. . .just because they were in the way between me and this sage being held captive by the Templars in Havana. . .it's a long story. . .suffice to say, everyone has their reason. . .what' s yours? 

 

This is correct, your first sentence of what i was saying.

"emphasis that an affair is not always the catalyst"

Nothing else.  I don't offend easy.  So none taken.

[Regi]

41 minutes ago, Comey2016 said:

You remind me of Richelle Nice.

And you still change the subject.

[Sugarnspice]

Just now, Jackal_ said:

A few things...

How any one can say he definitely committed the crime is beyond me. There is factually 0 pieces of credible physical or forensic evidence that proves he did it. 

Love it or hate it, the justice system sides with the accused until enough evidence is offered to prove them guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. That did not happen in this case. In fact, the exact opposite happened which should have led to a not guilty verdict. 

The jury was about the most pathetic group of one sided, attention seeking, peer pressured groups I've ever seen on a criminal case. The only one doing their job was the original foreman who was literally threatened to vote guilty and went to the judge with this info. Instead of the judge dismissing the juror (#8), he did nothing and the foreman decided to leave on his own accord for his own safety. New juror Richelle Nice, a single mother with a clear hatred and agenda for cheaters, comes in and immediately says he's guilty without looking at lack of evidence. She has since been proven to be a liar, manipulator, and should honestly be jailed for lying during the Voir Dire. The other original "no guilty" juror eventually changed his mind because "what sane man would leave his 7.5 month wife pregnant on a whim for a fishing trip an hour or so away". Um what? That makes him a murderer? I went on a golf trip 6 hours away from my 8 month pregnant wife last minute knowing she had my mother in law with her or close by. Guess that means I'm a murderer or a psychopath? Justin Falconer was dismissed for a one off comment to Laci's brother that had nothing to do with the actual case. Juror #8 is left on the jury after physically intimidating other jurors who don't share the same thoughts as him and tells a bartender he's "going to get Scott" when determine life in prison or death. Yeah that seems fair.

The whole "he didn't show enough emotion" bit is so unbelievably ridiculous it doesn't even warrant diving into. Everyone shows emotions in different ways. As an accused you are instructed to not show emotions or it could be mis-viewed as being emotionally unstable. Even saying that there were eye witnesses in the courtroom who said they saw Scott physically emotional at certain times, tearing up, shaking, unable to look at the pictures of Laci's torso and his unborn son's body. 

The bodies of Laci and Conner were found in the same Bay where Scott was the day they disappeared. It took them several months, several expert divers, and several debunked theories that you can dump a 150lb body off of a 14 ft. boat (when you can't even dump a 100lb weight over the side of the same boat without tipping/capsizing it) before the bodies were actually found. You really think it's hard to imagine (if Scott didn't do it) that whoever did wouldn't understand Scott is the prime suspect and how easy it would be to dump her body at a later date to even further suspect Scott? Why would Scott incriminate himself to the point of telling police exactly where he was only to have dumped the bodies in the same spot. 

The theories are he killed her in their house, or his boat, or his truck, or at the warehouse, yet there is not even 1 piece of evidence that supports that. There is not 1 eyewitness that saw Scott with a tarp or doing anything suspicious. Yet he apparently did it the night before (proven innacurate thanks to eye witnesses and internet searches the following morning from Laci) or the morning of (because it's so easy to go unnoticed carrying a body in a tarp in the daylight). 

I do agree the defense should have put the eye witnesses on the stand to determine a better timeline. Yet they had already proven the prosecutors original theory wrong in that he killed her the night before when the prosecutors came out and said Laci was still alive the morning of the 24th. Again, how in the hell would Scott dispose of a body in broad daylight? Other witnesses who saw him at the marina say they never saw him dragging/carrying anything out of the ordinary and they certainly didn't see anything large in his boat taking off from the marina. So where was the body at that point? 

He never incriminated himself once in all the botched wiring attempts. He claimed his innocence to anyone/everyone when he had no idea others were listening. It's clear he is a cheating ******* and deserved to be shown in the media as such. Just because he's a terrible husband with a clear sex addiction doesn't mean he's a murderer. 

Did he do it or not? I honestly have no idea. But the physical/forensic evidence that is actually there all sides with Scott. The circumstantial evidence and what the media wanted points to Scott being guilty. I choose to believe factual/physical/forensics evidence over anything else and if I'm on the jury, there is no way in hell I say guilty beyond a reasonable doubt because there is no solid evidence to support it. 

Exactly, and there is so much more, we have been saying all along, we don't know his heart, but the evidence does not support anything. Nothing.  The police made there own timeline.  The robbery across the street which i am convinced totally happened the 24th a reporter filming since 5am all day on 26th, he knows the police are totally lying about the date!  Why!!??, and now the fact that police suppressed that a tip came in that Laci confronted the burglars the 24th! That is mind blowing, i didn't know that one!. 

[Sugarnspice]

Just now, regi said:

That's a last resort, right? I mean, why would they need to consult a profiler when they had actual evidence to follow?

According to testimony in the prelim, the tracking dog indicated that Laci left the home by foot. (The handler's testimony was that the dog kept going to the center of the road which indicated to her that Laci had left the home by vehicle, and as a result of that evidence, authorities performed a search of a river west of Modesto which included divers.)

Edit: The evidence of what the tracking dog indicated wasn't admitted at trial.

Oh, you mean the dog that FAILED it's certification test.  This fact came out and that was why prosecutors didn't use that evidence.  But a dog who actually passed it's certification test picked up no criminally wrong scent of Laci wasn't used by prosecutors either.  heh heh.

[Regi]

8 minutes ago, Sugarnspice said:

Oh, you mean the dog that FAILED it's certification test.  This fact came out and that was why prosecutors didn't use that evidence.  But a dog who actually passed it's certification test picked up no criminally wrong scent of Laci wasn't used by prosecutors either.  heh heh.

I meant what I said... according to testimony from the handler, that's what the dog indicated!

Edited September 13, 2017 by regi

[Sugarnspice]

Just now, regi said:

I meant what I said... according to testimony from the handler, that's what the dog indicated!

There is no testimony, the handler never testified in court. That is nothing more than hearsay.  A figment of a confused dogs imagination. 

[Regi]

6 minutes ago, Sugarnspice said:

There is no testimony, the handler never testified in court. That is nothing more than hearsay.  A figment of a confused dogs imagination. 

WTH? I'd edited my post (#758) in order to point out that this was testimony from the pre-trial.

Edited September 13, 2017 by regi

[Jerry Gallo]

27 minutes ago, Sugarnspice said:

Exactly, and there is so much more, we have been saying all along, we don't know his heart, but the evidence does not support anything. Nothing.  The police made there own timeline.  The robbery across the street which i am convinced totally happened the 24th a reporter filming since 5am all day on 26th, he knows the police are totally lying about the date!  Why!!??, and now the fact that police suppressed that a tip came in that Laci confronted the burglars the 24th! That is mind blowing, i didn't know that one!. 

Servas testified she placed dog in back yard at 10:18am. Medina testified they didn't leave until 10:32am. Both times backed up by documented proof (Medina phone records, Servas Austin's receipt). Neither time challenged by defense. Thus, not credible that she interrupted Todd and Pierce burglary.

[Regi]

^ I don't think it even occurred on the 24th, and one of the supporter arguments is that it's highly unlikely it occurred on the 26th because by then, the neighborhood was a media circus, but I think I've offered sufficient info which I think shows that until the 26th, this was actually just a local story. 

 

[Jerry Gallo]

On 9/6/2017 at 5:47 PM, Crossificuo said:

It worries me greatly when I read things like this.

When I read "case closed" after the A - F list, I can't help but shake my head in concern -- concern for anyone facing a trial and has a jury with jurrors who can determine, "case closed", based on such a list. (And of course I imagine this list was not meant to be an exhaustive list.)

I mean no disrespect at all. I really mean that. I do not know this individual, so I am definitely not directing my thoughts at them as a person.

Instead, I am just honestly curious about what it is that leads people make up their mind about something so serious without very clear, "case closed" type of evidence. 

The evidence from the trial was largely coincidental,  circumstantial,  and plagued by unfortunate media influence from the likes of Nancy Grace. 

A - C can be descriptive of tens of millions of people each year in the US.... .... one famous person who fits that description is the former President of the United States of America, Bill Clinton.....

Bill Clinton looked at you, me, and hundreds of millions of people in the eye and said, "I did NOT have sexual relations with that woman....".... even though *the evidence was so strong that he did....and he was just a scared pervert about *what would happen if people knew the truth?* 

Point is, 1 out of every x people (x = figure under 10) can fit A - C on the list, but it doesn't mean they are *more likely* to murder someone..... does it?

I am NOT saying that Scott Petersen is innocent, or quilty. Not at all. I would never make such a claim unless I could be certain that the evidence fully supported one way or another. 

I would never, ever consider "case closed" on such a serious thing. To do so is just not fair to anyone. It's not fair to Lacy, her family, Scott, his family, and it's not fair to those who one day could find themselves in a situation where the media convicts them long before any encidence is presented. (Real evidence )

 

Lacy and Connor did not deserve to die. No way. It's disgusting what happened. Sickening. 

What Lacy and Connor DO deserve is for there to be thorough investigations into their deaths. Thorough.

They deserve to have the police revisit the case and interview all witnesses without immediately pointing the finger because of being scared of what the media will do to them in the public eye.

They deserve for the media to be respectful and unbiased. They deserve for the media to not allow Nancy Grace or others who are quick to judge, to be given the opportunity to influence the case. 

They deserve for there to be honest, unbiased trials no matter who is accused. 

They deserve to be remembered by who they were, what they did, what positive contributions they brought to others in life. 

They deserve to never be used by other people in order to further an agenda of some kind. Never. They deserve for a substantial amount of the money that people and companies made off this case to be put towards something noble. 

Every newspaper who knowingly printed and sold stories that witheld facts or implanted twisted ideas so money could be made, should be ashamed of themselves. 

Every media personality who "believed" they were "fighting for justice" by "telling stories" - true or not, should apologize to Lacy, Conor, their family, and Scott and his family, for them taking advantage of this unfortunate situation. 

They deserve an apology from the media, most definitely from Nancy Grace -- even though Nancy Grace will truly believe she was doing justice for them. She wasn't.  

*Justice is not convincing people to believe what you believe. That's called ignorance and ego.*

Her behavior, her ego, and her surprising ignorance caused more harm to Lacy and Scotts families than she'll likely ever admit or realize. (Until maybe 10 years from now after she is not in a spotlight for awhile and has time to reflect back on her behavior..... and reflect back on the real facts of the case.)

If any media personality were to report on this case, they should leave their personality out of it! Nancy Grace and so many other "celebrity attorneys " know better.

They all should  have spent WAY more time analyzing the case in the way any respected, experienced officer of the court would: "RULE OUT ALL POSSIBLE SCENARIOS.....ASK ALL THE RIGHT QUESTIONS....WITHOLD FROM MAKING DECISIONS PREMATURELY............DON'T ALLOW HEARSAY IN THE COURT!!!!"

Amaze's me how much hearsay is loved by media networks -- and how much $$$$ money it makes them. But man, when hearsay is in the court of law, it is despised and not respected... and for Good Reason!!!

Media Lawyer's profit from hearsay when it benefits them..... and despise it and whine about it when it hurts them...

 

Lacy and all involved deserve an apology from the Police and investigators for their shotty job. (Not opinion, it's factual and obvious when you study the case)

 

What are some things to ask???

F. How many people, in general, have access to the very same area he went boating that day? 100...1,000....100,000....1,000,000?

How many people were interviewed who went boating there in the week following that day?

(Yes, I'm fully aware that a response to the above could be,  "well, I bet there are not many people at all who had a wife go missing the same day they went fishing and then had their wife's body come ashore months later in the same area...)

 

What about saying, "okay, let's for a second take Scott out of the picture. Even though the ****spouse is ALWAYS the first person of interest no matter what***, let's say he was across the globe at the time. Let's take the affairs, marriage lies, etc out of the picture since ** that is more common than anyone even realizes.  Plus, we can't say that he might be a murder because he pulled a Bill Clinton and lied abuout not being happy in his marriage. Pulling a Bill Clinton does not make someone a murderer....**. 

Let's also take the media out of this.

Let's pretend Nancy Grace is busy elsewhere. Actually, let's pretend that she is not in the spotlight and is instead fighting for justice and peace in the court of law..... instead of fighting for ratings, popularity, and money even though she legitimately thinks she's fighting for justice and peace on TV.... ( opposite of what her experience as an attorney taugh her...)

So where do we stand? 

Who do we have? What do we have? 

What about the burglary across the street? 

What about the witnesses who saw Lacy walking her dog and being confronted by strangers?  What took place? What was said? What was seen? What was not seen?

What about people who might be jealous of Scott for some reason?  If there anyone? 

What about people Lacey knew and may have upset or may have even given the wrong impression to in some way? 

Did Lacy have any relationships that not even her closest friends and family knew about? (While people might say how unlikely that is, statistics tell another story about how truthful spouses can be about flings. ... both men and women are known the lie and hide such feelings and actions, no matter how insane it sounds of someone....)

 

What about neighbors? 

 

Uuugggghhhhhhhhhh the list just goes on and on and on. 

 

My whole point is that it's such a shame to read about people making such important decisions based on so little. Or based on how influential people may have been in the media or in their own lives. 

 

Drives me crazy how quick people are to judge others, but will not even realize they are making such poor assumptions.  

 

Often when I used to discuss this case, I was asked what made me conclude Scott was guilty. It was pointed out that jurors are supposed to take each piece of evidence and consider it on it's own merits. I did that and assumed the most innocent version of every piece. I then spliced each piece together into a complete story line from the day he asked Shawn Sibley to hook him up to the day he was arrested. That story was the most fundamentally unbelievable story I had ever heard, beyond comprehension or imagination. I then assumed the most likely version of the story based on what we would likely agree are facts and that story looked like most episodes of Dateline where the husband killed the wife. There are surely legitimate issues within the habeas writ that could grant Scott some level of recourse, but looking at the most fundamental aspects of this case, no one has been able to convince me that he's just terribly unlucky and the victim of a frame. Just not plausible.