Was Scott Peterson innocent ?

[+DieChecker]

This site shows the evidence and pictures of what the police found and surmised.

I really think it suspicious that Scott drove 90 some odd miles to San Francisco Bay, to fish for about an hour, for sturgeon (can you even do that in an hour?), using brand new lures, a couple miles from the marina (it maybe took the whole hour to get out to that island). And he had made 6 cement boat anchors days before, but only one was ever found. And there is numerous evidence from the cleaning lady that he did extensive cleaning at the house of laundry and floors between the 24th and the 27th when warrants were served.

Lacy's purse, wallet, ID, and phone were left behind, when she went on her "walk"?

When arrested... on his way to go golfing, he had $15000 in cash with him? 6 Credit Cards (3 not with his name) and 4 cell phones?

Really when you take all these "coincidences", and "maybes", they all start to add up.

http://www.findlaci2...-beginning.html

Edited April 15, 2016 by DieChecker

[timewarrior]

So then the answer is... If you plan on killing your wife, have a good alibi and be sure you clean up professionally? The less evidence there is, the more people will feel sorry for you and want to let you walk free.

Lord. . .noooooooo. . .the answer is to never kill your wife. You will most likely not get away with it and it's just not worth it. What these morons who kill their spouses don't seem to fathom is that they will automatically be considered a suspect solely based on the close personal relationship to the victim. No amount of planning or conspiracies involving other parties will pan out. . .they will eventually unravel and the police will eventually nail your behind to the wall. It's called divorce people, it's expensive because the price of freedom is high. It's only slightly less expensive than losing said freedom to the penal system.

Consider the following points noted from serial killers. . .the best way to get away with murder is to do the following:

1. Pick a stranger that you have no known connection with, stranger killings while rare are the hardest to solve.

2. Find someone alone and vulnerable, preferably where there are no cameras

3. Don't carry your cell phone or any other trackable technology. . .that way they can't prove you were in the area.

4. Spend as little time with the body as possible, the longer you are with the body the more likely you are to leave evidence behind of who you are.

5. Dump said body in a wooded area, far from public traffic, the longer it takes to find it, the less likely there will be useable DNA evidence or a determinable cause of death. . .while it might be fun to shock the public with some lurid display, the costs of doing such a thing now with today's technology is just not worth it. Let the DNA degrade. . .

6. Don't involve other people. . .the best murders only involve two people. . .and one of them is the victim. . .

Maybe we should just let online Apologists run the courts. Apparently they are all knowing and their Mercy is never wrong. Perhaps being an online apologist should require a license or something so you can prove you Really Care ™.

I said earlier that I saw there was reasonable doubt, but NO... You guys keep coming at me like I have a branding iron to Scott's face. Jeez.

Wait, I'm confused. . .are you calling me an apologist? I never apologize. . .for I am never wrong, though I am often in doubt. . ..and no, I don't want apologists or people who care to run the courts. I want people who are:

1. Educated in criminal law and detective technologies and procedures

2. NOT politically appointed or elected into office.

3. Unbiased in attitude and who can see the world in black and white before considering the shades of grey.

4. well organized and meticulous in their presentation of the facts of their case, with heavy emphasis on the cross referencing of said facts. . .

I also want:

1. Stringent punishments for instances of prosecutorial misconduct. I'm talking criminal and personal liability here

2. A debunking of all the so called feeling sciences. . .i.e. he didn't act in such and such way so I feel that he must be guilty. Or other such nonsense pseudo science such as attempting to match bite marks being the sole reason for conviction only to find out years later that the science is junk. If an experiment can't account for all variables, then it's a crappy experiment. . .and shouldn't be used for evidence.

3. A stricter reliance on hard evidence that directly proves the crime, the motive of said crime and the event that happened during said crime. . .

I would also like a pony. . .

This site shows the evidence and pictures of what the police found and surmised.

I really think it suspicious that Scott drove 70 some odd miles to San Francisco Bay, to fish for about an hour, for sturgeon, using brand new lures, a couple miles from the marina. And he had made 6 cement boat anchors days before, but only one was ever found. And there is numerous evidence from the cleaning lady that he did extensive cleaning at the house of laundry and floors between the 24th and the 27th when warrants were served.

Lacy's purse, wallet, ID, and phone were left behind, when she went on her "walk"?

Really when you take all these "coincidences", and "maybes", they all start to add up.

http://www.findlaci2...-beginning.html

Yeah, I know women who leave their wallets and cell phones in their cars when they get home so they can find them again later on when they go out. I know women who never carry anything like that around whenever her husband is around because it's his job to pay for things and make the calls on his cell phone. I know people who drive their sons 2 hours out of state for a 30 minutes horseback riding lesson and then drive back home in the same day.

People. . .do. . .weird. . .things. . .

It doesn't make them murders. . .

what do coincidences and maybes add up to without hard proof to back them up. . .just more coincidences and maybes. . .it's all pure speculation unless you can prove, with irrefutable factual evidence that:

1. A crime took place.

2. Said person committed that crime.

What's the saying? Better to let 10 guilty men go free than let one innocent man spend one day in jail? Or something like that? We hold our justice system to this standard because it is the morally right thing to do and because to do otherwise would result in the tyranny of both men and women and society in general.

If the prosecution can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt with hard evidence that can't be refuted with mere speculation, then the prosecution shouldn't be bringing the case to trial in the first place. It is a waste of our time and resources and serves as an injustice to the victims. . .

And lord don't get me started on the juries. . .half the time they are filled with uneducated, disgusting, bigoted, morally reprehensible people who couldn't solve a simple math equation to save their life. Half the time, they just assume the person is guilty because why else would they be in this situation. Only bad people get arrested. . .only bad people go to trial. . .there's no evidence of a crime. . .but they arrested him so he must be bad. . .Even now, nearly 11 years later, the jury members speak with such vehemence, I often wonder just how professional they were. . .

To be honest, if you are ever charged with murder. . .go with the one where the judge decides it. . .I'd rather try to convince one educated person of my innocence rather than 12 morons.

Edited April 15, 2016 by timewarrior

[timewarrior]

I know this won't be popular, but...

Laci could have been hiding out (e.g., Gone Girl) and when Amber surfaced Laci realized Scott never loved her in the first place (perhaps puzzle pieces began to fall into place for her) and she decided to kill herself. Along with that, she didn't want to bring a his child into a loveless marriage, messy divorce, or wanted to get back at him - so she ended it and made it look like murder (at least suspicious enough to the police who would investigate). The ME couldn't establish how she died, nor how long she had been in the water. It appeared Connor was never in the water and may have been alive into January.

What better way to screw over your cheating husband? Especially knowing full well where he was that day. . .another theory at the time was that she was abducted and the killers heard of Scott's location in the media. . .where is was reported on REPEATEDLY for DAYS across the freaking country! If I'm evil enough to kill and stupid enough to hold onto the body. . .I'd probably dump it at said location. . .especially if I knew the cops would suspect the husband. . .I mean. . .did they even check to see if anyone else suspicious visited the marina weeks after the day of disappearance and the media coverage? Peruse through the video footage for anyone carrying a large. . .overstuffed suitcase?

And before anyone says a women would NEVER run away like that. . .does the name "Jennifer Carol Wilbanks" ring any bells? She went across the country and when found, four days later, lied repeatedly about why she left and what happened. All the while. . .her loving fiancé was suspect number one. . .

[Booth]

I said earlier that I saw there was reasonable doubt, but NO... You guys keep coming at me like I have a branding iron to Scott's face. Jeez.

This is what you said:

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

In other words, "I agree he was factually innocent as there was reasonable doubt. But even if he was falsely accused and totally innocent, it doesn't matter to me because he was a bad guy and therefore deserves death."

I'm not sure how else we're supposed to interpret your statements.

Expecting the State to actually prove someone guilty, or expecting a jury to actually consider the evidence presented to them, is not being apologist. It's a matter of maintaining the fundamental rights which are designed to protect us. ALL of us. Even a "piece of crap" like Scott Peterson.

[Regi]

It's almost, almost, too hard for me to believe that anyone could consider that Peterson is even possibly innocent.

[Shadowpup]

So then the answer is... If you plan on killing your wife, have a good alibi and be sure you clean up professionally? The less evidence there is, the more people will feel sorry for you and want to let you walk free.

No, I happen to think he is guilty. What I do NOT agree with is the attitude "So what if he was falsely accused, kill him." You can't spin that enough to make that even remotely humane.

[Booth]

This site shows the evidence and pictures of what the police found and surmised.

I really think it suspicious that Scott drove 90 some odd miles to San Francisco Bay, to fish for about an hour, for sturgeon (can you even do that in an hour?), using brand new lures, a couple miles from the marina (it maybe took the whole hour to get out to that island). And he had made 6 cement boat anchors days before, but only one was ever found. And there is numerous evidence from the cleaning lady that he did extensive cleaning at the house of laundry and floors between the 24th and the 27th when warrants were served.

Scott stated in his interview that his primary intention was just to put his new boat in the water for the first time to see how it would fare. His goal was not to fish at all, for sturgeon or any other. How else is one supposed to see how his boat will fare in the ocean without actually going to the ocean?

There's no evidence whatsoever that he made any more than one anchor. Zero. And honestly, you ought to ask yourself how anyone could be so incredibly stupid as to dispose of a body with several uniquely identifiable anchors attached to it while keeping the last matching anchor on his own boat. Oh, and not only that, he also made sure to inform the police(and provide proof) of exactly where he was that day, so they would be sure to go search that area for said body, where they would certainly find it with these same matching anchors attached to it. Does that make any sense to you? It's farcical!

Can you quote from the trial transcripts where the cleaning lady said this? I don't think you can, because she never testified to this.

Lacy's purse, wallet, ID, and phone were left behind, when she went on her "walk"?

She would've been within minutes of her home, in her own neighborhood. How many women take their purse(where they keep their wallet, ID and phone) when they walk their dog? Honestly, this means nothing.

When arrested... on his way to go golfing, he had $15000 in cash with him? 6 Credit Cards (3 not with his name) and 4 cell phones?

Really when you take all these "coincidences", and "maybes", they all start to add up.

And that's a fair observation. At some point, some of these strange circumstances start looking like evidence of guilt. The cash was apparently given to Scott from his mother as a result of a bank mix-up. That was documented and brought out at trial. The cell phones and credit cards though do certainly raise an eyebrow. and I don't know why he had those. But importantly, he doesn't have to explain. It's certainly not against the law to have multiple cell phones or credit cards in one's possession.

There are legitimate questions in this case, but do they add up to "guilt beyond a reasonable doubt"? No way. Not even close.

[+DieChecker]

No, I happen to think he is guilty. What I do NOT agree with is the attitude "So what if he was falsely accused, kill him." You can't spin that enough to make that even remotely humane.

Yet that is not what I said, is it? You are reading into what I wrote what you wanted to be there. Or, more likely, what someone else read into it they wanted to be there.

[+DieChecker]

This is what you said:

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

In other words, "I agree he was factually innocent as there was reasonable doubt. But even if he was falsely accused and totally innocent, it doesn't matter to me because he was a bad guy and therefore deserves death."

I'm not sure how else we're supposed to interpret your statements.

Expecting the State to actually prove someone guilty, or expecting a jury to actually consider the evidence presented to them, is not being apologist. It's a matter of maintaining the fundamental rights which are designed to protect us. ALL of us. Even a "piece of crap" like Scott Peterson.

Nice partial quote there buddy. I didn't say "kill him", I didn't even say to keep him in prison, I said I'm not sorry for what happened to him.

Your "In other words....", is just that.... Your Own words.

The man was, and still is, a piece of crap. I don't feel sorry for him. Do you?

[+DieChecker]

Wait, I'm confused. . .are you calling me an apologist? I never apologize. . .for I am never wrong, though I am often in doubt. . ..and no, I don't want apologists or people who care to run the courts. I want people who are:

1. Educated in criminal law and detective technologies and procedures

2. NOT politically appointed or elected into office.

3. Unbiased in attitude and who can see the world in black and white before considering the shades of grey.

4. well organized and meticulous in their presentation of the facts of their case, with heavy emphasis on the cross referencing of said facts. . .

I also want:

1. Stringent punishments for instances of prosecutorial misconduct. I'm talking criminal and personal liability here

2. A debunking of all the so called feeling sciences. . .i.e. he didn't act in such and such way so I feel that he must be guilty. Or other such nonsense pseudo science such as attempting to match bite marks being the sole reason for conviction only to find out years later that the science is junk. If an experiment can't account for all variables, then it's a crappy experiment. . .and shouldn't be used for evidence.

3. A stricter reliance on hard evidence that directly proves the crime, the motive of said crime and the event that happened during said crime. . .

I would also like a pony. . .

I feel like the pony is probably the most likely to come about.

I'd agree that we should not convict people on "feelings", but circumstantial evidence can be very persuading, in the absence any evidence of any other suspects. And Mr Peterson had circumstantial evidence in a towering mountain over him.

Would you have only physical evidence be presented in court, and dismiss circumstantial evidence altogether?

Yeah, I know women who leave their wallets and cell phones in their cars when they get home so they can find them again later on when they go out. I know women who never carry anything like that around whenever her husband is around because it's his job to pay for things and make the calls on his cell phone. I know people who drive their sons 2 hours out of state for a 30 minutes horseback riding lesson and then drive back home in the same day.

People. . .do. . .weird. . .things. . .

It doesn't make them murders. . .

And did any of those people buy a secret horse a couple days before their spouse disappeared, and only go riding that horse the one time, on Christmas, alone. And did the spouse mysteriously appear in the desert just outside where the horse riding occurred.

Do your friends that leave their purse/wallet behind also leave their sunglasses, phone, and every other personal item behind also?

I do agree these don't equal murder, but they do add up to not just weird, but Weird Weird.

what do coincidences and maybes add up to without hard proof to back them up. . .just more coincidences and maybes. . .it's all pure speculation unless you can prove, with irrefutable factual evidence that:

1. A crime took place.

2. Said person committed that crime.

What's the saying? Better to let 10 guilty men go free than let one innocent man spend one day in jail? Or something like that? We hold our justice system to this standard because it is the morally right thing to do and because to do otherwise would result in the tyranny of both men and women and society in general.

That is how it works. I agree.

As an example, my wife and I have let a friend (a woman) and her two kids, age 2 and 3, stay with us because she was being domestically abused. Her boyfriend was arrested and charged with multiple Federal charges for abusing minors, prostituting minors and transporting minors for sex. That was Aug 2015. This last week we were told all the charges were dismissed, with no reasons given, and he's walking the streets free again. He called our friend, not sure how he got her new number, and said he's looking forward to beating the **** out of her again very soon. And who knows what he will do to the 2 year old girl and 3 year old boy.

I have to agree our justice system rocks. NOT!

If the prosecution can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt with hard evidence that can't be refuted with mere speculation, then the prosecution shouldn't be bringing the case to trial in the first place. It is a waste of our time and resources and serves as an injustice to the victims. . .

And lord don't get me started on the juries. . .half the time they are filled with uneducated, disgusting, bigoted, morally reprehensible people who couldn't solve a simple math equation to save their life. Half the time, they just assume the person is guilty because why else would they be in this situation. Only bad people get arrested. . .only bad people go to trial. . .there's no evidence of a crime. . .but they arrested him so he must be bad. . .Even now, nearly 11 years later, the jury members speak with such vehemence, I often wonder just how professional they were. . .

To be honest, if you are ever charged with murder. . .go with the one where the judge decides it. . .I'd rather try to convince one educated person of my innocence rather than 12 morons.

And I still do not feel sorry for Scott Peterson. He was and is a piece of crap.

Edited April 16, 2016 by DieChecker

[+DieChecker]

Scott stated in his interview that his primary intention was just to put his new boat in the water for the first time to see how it would fare. His goal was not to fish at all, for sturgeon or any other. How else is one supposed to see how his boat will fare in the ocean without actually going to the ocean?

I thought the very first quotes from Peterson were that he'd been fishing, and when asked, he couldn't tell them what kind of fish he'd been after. Yet, he had specific lures in his tacklebox. I've not seen anywhere that he was just boating to try out the boat.

There's no evidence whatsoever that he made any more than one anchor. Zero.

Well then you haven't looked at the evidence really. The police took photos of the one homemade anchor, and directly tied it to six circular marks on a trailer Peterson had in the warehouse. Also the brother in law said he helped make six of them (I'm not sure how exactly) and had provided the concrete. And Peterson said that the extra concrete (other then the one anchor) went into the driveway repair. However that wasn't nearly enough to use even a part of the bag. And Peterson could not explain where the other five anchors went.

Hardly zero.

And honestly, you ought to ask yourself how anyone could be so incredibly stupid as to dispose of a body with several uniquely identifiable anchors attached to it while keeping the last matching anchor on his own boat. Oh, and not only that, he also made sure to inform the police(and provide proof) of exactly where he was that day, so they would be sure to go search that area for said body, where they would certainly find it with these same matching anchors attached to it. Does that make any sense to you? It's farcical!

It does make sense, for the very reason that you are putting forward. If he had been seen at the marina, he'd have to have a story. And if he had been seen out on the water, then he'd need to explain that also. So the best lies are also those that are closest to the truth. He (assuming he did it) assumed that the anchors wouldn't hold her down infinitely, but he did assume the current in the SF Bay would have pulled her out to sea. If he'd been right about that, no body would have ever been found.

Can you quote from the trial transcripts where the cleaning lady said this? I don't think you can, because she never testified to this.

The cleaning lady's name is Margarita Nava. It was in her testimony to the police. The police then quoted her regarding the bucket and mop. And the laundry done in the laundry room.

http://pwc-sii.com/Timeline/State.htm

She would've been within minutes of her home, in her own neighborhood.

I thought she was reportedly seen by a witness for the Defense some 8 blocks away, which is more then a few minutes away.

How many women take their purse(where they keep their wallet, ID and phone) when they walk their dog?

Of the woman I know... Almost all of them would have taken their sun glasses and phone. Also in the state of California, you are supposed to carry and ID at all times, by law. If I remember right.

Honestly, this means nothing.And that's a fair observation. At some point, some of these strange circumstances start looking like evidence of guilt. The cash was apparently given to Scott from his mother as a result of a bank mix-up. That was documented and brought out at trial. The cell phones and credit cards though do certainly raise an eyebrow. and I don't know why he had those. But importantly, he doesn't have to explain. It's certainly not against the law to have multiple cell phones or credit cards in one's possession.

So, then you haven't even really looked at the whole of the evidence, have you? Are you only repeating what you've read in some Apologist website?

Here is what was found in Scott's car when he was trying to avoid arrest, but said he was just going golfing...

http://www.findlaci2003.us/scott-items-in-car.html

A bank mix up? Really? Involving exactly $15000 in cash? Conveniently at the same time as he just happened to have a bunch of stuff that would be useful for a guy on the run?

There are legitimate questions in this case, but do they add up to "guilt beyond a reasonable doubt"? No way. Not even close.

I would agree. I'm just saying that it doesn't appear Scott was acting totally innocent. The circumstantial evidence looks like a mountain, but I'd not have convicted for Death for it myself.

[Booth]

Nice partial quote there buddy. I didn't say "kill him", I didn't even say to keep him in prison, I said I'm not sorry for what happened to him.

Your "In other words....", is just that.... Your Own words.

The man was, and still is, a piece of crap. I don't feel sorry for him. Do you?

It's not a partial quote; it's a complete sentence. That's what you said.

Yes, those are my words, and if they mischaracterize your thoughts, you're welcome to clarify. You're "not sorry". What does that mean? You don't care? That's how I read it.

No, you didn't say "kill him", nor did I quote you as saying such. But you do know that he was condemned to death.

I don't know that Scott is/was a "piece of crap". Many people had a number of positive things to say about him; he was rather well-liked. He did cheat on his wife, and that was wrong, but I don't think any of us would like to be defined strictly by the mistakes we've made. And of course I feel sorry for Scott, if he's innocent. Who wouldn't? Cheating on your wife shouldn't result in a prison term, let alone a death sentence.

[Booth]

I thought the very first quotes from Peterson were that he'd been fishing, and when asked, he couldn't tell them what kind of fish he'd been after. Yet, he had specific lures in his tacklebox. I've not seen anywhere that he was just boating to try out the boat.

That's because you're citing myths propagated in the media, not case facts. From his initial interview with Det. Brocchini:

"BROCCHINI: So you just, when you got in your boat you took off did you go very far or…

PETERSON: Well I mean probably a couple miles, I went north ah, found a, like a little island kinda deal there.

BROCCHINI: Um hum.

PETERSON: Ah island ah had a buncha trash on it I remember a big sign that said no landing, looked like some broken piers around it. I just assumed it would be a decent, you know, shallow area.

BROCCHINI: Did you troll?

PETERSON: Little bit. I mean a lot of, lot of the reason I went was just to get that boat in the water to see, you know.

BROCCHINI: Yeah."

Well then you haven't looked at the evidence really. The police took photos of the one homemade anchor, and directly tied it to six circular marks on a trailer Peterson had in the warehouse. Also the brother in law said he helped make six of them (I'm not sure how exactly) and had provided the concrete. And Peterson said that the extra concrete (other then the one anchor) went into the driveway repair. However that wasn't nearly enough to use even a part of the bag. And Peterson could not explain where the other five anchors went.

Hardly zero.

This is simply not true. Read the trial transcripts. The circular marks(4, not 6) on the trailer matched the pitcher used, not the bucket which was used as a mold for the anchor.

Quote for me where Brent Rocha claimed to have helped Scott make anchors. You can't do it; It didn't happen.

Scott said he used the rest of the concrete for repair on his driveway. And what did the detectives find at his home? Fresh concrete work on his driveway.

It is you who is unfamiliar with the evidence. Again, read the transcripts.

It does make sense, for the very reason that you are putting forward. If he had been seen at the marina, he'd have to have a story. And if he had been seen out on the water, then he'd need to explain that also. So the best lies are also those that are closest to the truth. He (assuming he did it) assumed that the anchors wouldn't hold her down infinitely, but he did assume the current in the SF Bay would have pulled her out to sea. If he'd been right about that, no body would have ever been found.

That doesn't explain why he would've kept the one uniquely matching anchor, which would definitively tie him to the body, on his own boat! NOBODY would do that.

The cleaning lady's name is Margarita Nava. It was in her testimony to the police. The police then quoted her regarding the bucket and mop. And the laundry done in the laundry room.

http://pwc-sii.com/Timeline/State.htm

I know her name, and I know her testimony. There was a mop and bucket left outside and Scott put the clothes from his fishing trip in the washer. Quote for me her testimony with regard to this "extensive cleaning" Scott did between the 24th and 27th. There was no evidence of clean-up in the house whatsoever.

I thought she was reportedly seen by a witness for the Defense some 8 blocks away, which is more then a few minutes away.

Of the woman I know... Almost all of them would have taken their sun glasses and phone. Also in the state of California, you are supposed to carry and ID at all times, by law. If I remember right.

Well, I don't know how long it takes you to walk 8 blocks. I do it regularly in about 7 minutes or so. Knowing that Laci was pregnant, let's double that estimate. That still puts her "within minutes" of her home. For whatever reason(it wasn't working, it was charging, etc.), she didn't take her phone. Either way, this isn't evidence of a crime.

So, then you haven't even really looked at the whole of the evidence, have you? Are you only repeating what you've read in some Apologist website?

Here is what was found in Scott's car when he was trying to avoid arrest, but said he was just going golfing...

http://www.findlaci2...ems-in-car.html

A bank mix up? Really? Involving exactly $15000 in cash? Conveniently at the same time as he just happened to have a bunch of stuff that would be useful for a guy on the run?

Again, it is you who has failed to look at the evidence. No, not what was reported by Nancy Grace et al., but the evidence, that which was presented at trial. Scott was taken into custody essentially at the golf course, and made no attempt to "avoid arrest". Immediately upon the officers initiating the traffic stop, Scott pulled over and was fully compliant.

It wasn't exactly $15,000, but once again, if you read the trial transcripts, you will see there was a reasonable explanation as to why he had that cash.

But consider, if Scott was planning to go on the run with his "bunch of stuff"(camping gear, etc.), why would he go buy a red Mercedes coupe? That's hardly the type of vehicle to use in order to look inconspicuous or go hide out in the woods. Does that make any sense to you?

[+DieChecker]

You may be right, but it all reads to me like Scott just managed everything very well, and that is why he is likely to get out.

At least he did a few years. I'm not sorry for what has happened to him.

[timewarrior]

I feel like the pony is probably the most likely to come about.

I'd agree that we should not convict people on "feelings", but circumstantial evidence can be very persuading, in the absence any evidence of any other suspects. And Mr Peterson had circumstantial evidence in a towering mountain over him.

Would you have only physical evidence be presented in court, and dismiss circumstantial evidence altogether?

A towering mountain of circumstantial evidence is a shaky mountain indeed. A prosecutor who runs a case with just such evidence is more of a gambling man in my opinion. It could go either way and on some occasions has been shown to be the wrong decision with the wrong outcome. If all you have is circumstantial evidence, then you should keep poking until you do find something. To do otherwise is just lazy and foolhardy. No I would not have just physical evidence in court, circumstantial that is backed or linked by physical is okay as well. But just a purely circumstantial case? Nothing of a physical nature? Raises my hackles and makes me wonder if we'll be seeing this case in the news yet again.

And did any of those people buy a secret horse a couple days before their spouse disappeared, and only go riding that horse the one time, on Christmas, alone. And did the spouse mysteriously appear in the desert just outside where the horse riding occurred.

Do your friends that leave their purse/wallet behind also leave their sunglasses, phone, and every other personal item behind also?

I do agree these don't equal murder, but they do add up to not just weird, but Weird Weird.

Well the crux of your argument is whether or not the horse was secret, whether it's anyone's D@mn business to know about said horse (especially if it's a man toy that he didn't want others to know about just yet, which is okay), and whether or not the first time he tried it out was the day the universe decided his whole life would go to the crapper. I admit, the whole wife's body showing up right at the location of the horse was down right weird. . .so weird that it boggles the mind. It makes me think, either Scott was a complete moron, or someone dumped the body there after hearing about it in the constant news reports about his location that day. I mean his alibi was pretty much covered 24/7 on the news channels. . .so theoretically it is possible someone. . .perhaps Laci herself. . .dumped the body there. . .

Regarding the personal items. . .oh yes. . .I've seen women not take anything but the clothes on their back when traveling with their man. . .they prefer not having anything in their pockets. . .

Weird Weird does not equate murder. . it equates suspicion on murder. . .and perhaps a regretful night at the Roxbury with a pair of missing underwear being involved somehow. . .

That is how it works. I agree.

As an example, my wife and I have let a friend (a woman) and her two kids, age 2 and 3, stay with us because she was being domestically abused. Her boyfriend was arrested and charged with multiple Federal charges for abusing minors, prostituting minors and transporting minors for sex. That was Aug 2015. This last week we were told all the charges were dismissed, with no reasons given, and he's walking the streets free again. He called our friend, not sure how he got her new number, and said he's looking forward to beating the **** out of her again very soon. And who knows what he will do to the 2 year old girl and 3 year old boy.

I have to agree our justice system rocks. NOT!

well that is a verbal threat. . .and that could constitute a restraining order. . .that is a sticky situation. . .Stalkers are a problem in today's society and I agree that something must be done to measure their intent and detain them for said intent. . .

until then. . .she can either get protection. . .never be alone until this is all over. . .or and I like this option. . .set a trap for the dude. . .make him think she's alone when there's a swat team keeping constant watch over her. the second he strikes. . .a sharp shooter ends his obsession the easy way. . .

Would also save on court costs as well. . .provided enough witnesses exist to prove self defense.

And I still do not feel sorry for Scott Peterson. He was and is a piece of crap.

But how do you REALLY feel? Would a comfort cookie and some puppy videos make you feel better? If you cannot separate the louse from the murderer. . .then I fear you may be permanently biased in this matter. . .To look at things objectively you must unlearn what you have learned. .. and realize that ye who is without sin shall cast the first stone. . .and how many of us are there without some level of sin. . .?

[timewarrior]

You may be right, but it all reads to me like Scott just managed everything very well, and that is why he is likely to get out.

At least he did a few years. I'm not sorry for what has happened to him.

And if police actually did a thorough investigation and found, without a doubt, the real killer or killers and an innocent man, who just so happened to be a cheater, spent all that time in jail, his freedom withheld, his liberties violated. . .would you feel sorry for him then? Or would you in your self righteous indignation still say he deserved it. . .to be on death row for cheating? I'd be careful if I were you. . .karma is a b*tch and when it coms for you, you won't be smiling. . .how funny would it be if you, you yourself would be suspected in a murder? If the tables were turned and every sin you ever committed was national news? And those sins were the sole reason why you went to death row? I don't know about you. .. but I'd be very worried. . .I myself have a lot of sins. . .but I ain't no murderer. . .

[Regi]

Oh, for cying out freakin' loud, wake up and smell the damned coffee. Even my dog knows the man killed his wife.

Edit: Yeah, I'm not even gonna go there because it's too damned pathetic!

Edited April 19, 2016 by regi

[Aftermath]

Oh, for cying out freakin' loud, wake up and smell the damned coffee. Even my dog knows the man killed his wife.

Edit: Yeah, I'm not even gonna go there because it's too damened pathetic!

Then, it is possible that even your dog is wrong (too).

Edited April 19, 2016 by Aftermath

[Regi]

Then, it is possible that even your dog is wrong.

No, because you don't know what happened. You see, it's like we're lost in the woods, not knowing which way to go but my dog says "this is the way" while you're saying "I don't know", and so I'm pretty damned sure I'm gonna follow my dog.

[timewarrior]

No, because you don't know what happened. You see, it's like we're lost in the woods, not knowing which way to go but my dog says "this is the way" while you're saying "I don't know", and so I'm pretty damned sure I'm gonna follow my dog.

That has to be euphemism for something. . .

[The Narcisse]

That's because you're citing myths propagated in the media, not case facts. From his initial interview with Det. Brocchini:

"BROCCHINI: So you just, when you got in your boat you took off did you go very far or…

PETERSON: Well I mean probably a couple miles, I went north ah, found a, like a little island kinda deal there.

BROCCHINI: Um hum.

PETERSON: Ah island ah had a buncha trash on it I remember a big sign that said no landing, looked like some broken piers around it. I just assumed it would be a decent, you know, shallow area.

BROCCHINI: Did you troll?

PETERSON: Little bit. I mean a lot of, lot of the reason I went was just to get that boat in the water to see, you know.

BROCCHINI: Yeah."

This is simply not true. Read the trial transcripts. The circular marks(4, not 6) on the trailer matched the pitcher used, not the bucket which was used as a mold for the anchor.

Quote for me where Brent Rocha claimed to have helped Scott make anchors. You can't do it; It didn't happen.

Scott said he used the rest of the concrete for repair on his driveway. And what did the detectives find at his home? Fresh concrete work on his driveway.

It is you who is unfamiliar with the evidence. Again, read the transcripts.That doesn't explain why he would've kept the one uniquely matching anchor, which would definitively tie him to the body, on his own boat! NOBODY would do that.I know her name, and I know her testimony. There was a mop and bucket left outside and Scott put the clothes from his fishing trip in the washer. Quote for me her testimony with regard to this "extensive cleaning" Scott did between the 24th and 27th. There was no evidence of clean-up in the house whatsoever.Well, I don't know how long it takes you to walk 8 blocks. I do it regularly in about 7 minutes or so. Knowing that Laci was pregnant, let's double that estimate. That still puts her "within minutes" of her home. For whatever reason(it wasn't working, it was charging, etc.), she didn't take her phone. Either way, this isn't evidence of a crime.Again, it is you who has failed to look at the evidence. No, not what was reported by Nancy Grace et al., but the evidence, that which was presented at trial. Scott was taken into custody essentially at the golf course, and made no attempt to "avoid arrest". Immediately upon the officers initiating the traffic stop, Scott pulled over and was fully compliant.

It wasn't exactly $15,000, but once again, if you read the trial transcripts, you will see there was a reasonable explanation as to why he had that cash.

But consider, if Scott was planning to go on the run with his "bunch of stuff"(camping gear, etc.), why would he go buy a red Mercedes coupe? That's hardly the type of vehicle to use in order to look inconspicuous or go hide out in the woods. Does that make any sense to you?

The highlighted portion of your point is the only one I take issue with. People do dumb things trying to cover up murders. They hurry and rush and panic and leave behind clues that point directly to them that from an outside perspective others would think would be a no-brainer. Simply stating that "NOBODY would do that!" as evidence pointing to innocence is flimsy at best and manipulative at worst.

[Aftermath]

Oh, for cying out freakin' loud, wake up and smell the damned coffee. Even my dog knows the man killed his wife.

Edit: Yeah, I'm not even gonna go there because it's too damned pathetic!

Then, it is possible that even your dog is wrong (too).

No, because you don't know what happened. You see, it's like we're lost in the woods, not knowing which way to go but my dog says "this is the way" while you're saying "I don't know", and so I'm pretty damned sure I'm gonna follow my dog.

That has to be euphemism for something. . .

Um... I think it was a joke, but I'm just not sure.

[docyabut2]

Scott Peterson is a guilty as all hell, who else would want to kill his wife,

[+DieChecker]

The highlighted portion of your point is the only one I take issue with. People do dumb things trying to cover up murders. They hurry and rush and panic and leave behind clues that point directly to them that from an outside perspective others would think would be a no-brainer. Simply stating that "NOBODY would do that!" as evidence pointing to innocence is flimsy at best and manipulative at worst.

Scott did plenty of dumb things. But none of that turned into hard evidence. Which is why some think he deserves to walk free.

[+DieChecker]

And if police actually did a thorough investigation and found, without a doubt, the real killer or killers and an innocent man, who just so happened to be a cheater, spent all that time in jail, his freedom withheld, his liberties violated. . .would you feel sorry for him then? Or would you in your self righteous indignation still say he deserved it. . .to be on death row for cheating? I'd be careful if I were you. . .karma is a b*tch and when it coms for you, you won't be smiling. . .how funny would it be if you, you yourself would be suspected in a murder? If the tables were turned and every sin you ever committed was national news? And those sins were the sole reason why you went to death row? I don't know about you. .. but I'd be very worried. . .I myself have a lot of sins. . .but I ain't no murderer. . .

Well, let's face facts. His odds of being put to death are almost zero. I mean, there are lots of people in line ahead of him and with LOTS worse convictions, and they aren't going to their deaths. (More's the pity IMHO.)

If the real killer was found. No, I'd still not feel sorry for him. He'd be free to fine his own lawsuits and such, I'd not gainsay him that. But, no, I'd not feel sorry for him.

If my wife was killed. I'd certainly not act like Peterson did, selling her stuff the next week, and planning lavish vacations. I expect I'd show some indication of being shocked and sad, unlike Mr Peterson, who was photographed laughing and happy less then a week after her death. I know, I know, it doesn't indicate guilt, but it does indicate a piece of crap. He was still seeing his girlfriend after his wife disappeared and gave no indications to her that anything was wrong. It was the news that told her Scott was under suspicion, if I remember right.

If all my sins/faults were to come out, the headline would be "Man views porn 8 years ago. Wife upset.". Yeah, I don't have much to hide. I ain't a piece of crap like this guy was.... errr..... is.

No, I'm not feeling sorry for him. Let those without sin cast the first stone.... and I'd be throwing stones at this guy 100%