Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Was Scott Peterson innocent ?


Booth

Recommended Posts

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%

I can understand and value your opinion, you are entitled to it and everyone has one. . .among other things. . .however, I do have one caveat. . .the whole, "oh he was photographed smiling the week after her death thing. . ." The problem with photographs. . .they only show a brief instant of time. . .same with most videos. . .

Are you saying that you could be emotionally devastated 95 percent of the time because of an event, but because you had a brief moment of happiness or laughed at something that lightened your mood, and it was captured on camera, automatically equates you to a monster? Not to pick, but we are allowed to HEAL after a loss are we not? Are we not expected to move on. . .at your own pace. . .to continue to live on instead of dwell on the past until the second you die? What a miserable life that would be. . .

Sure a lot of his behavior was weird and caddy. . .but dear god. .. smiling? on camera? Truly we are all monsters. . .in fact. . .I should have probably killed myself right after 9/11 or any other tragic event in my life. . .because even in my darkest times. . .I manage to find the humor in things. . .

The whole getting rid of her stuff thing. . .another part of the moving on process. . .some do it sooner than others. . .and some are forced to do it by their families. . .only to be accused by police and others as being cold hearted and callous. . .it's ridiculous. . .seriously. . .do we actually need a standard of when it's okay to get rid of a dead person's stuff? A week? Two? five years? Never? Does manner of death factor in? Can you imagine the effect on estate sales?

Lord, you can't even over grieve without being accused by the cops of acting or doing overkill. . .Look at Russel Faria. . .the man was hysterical on the 911 call. . .and what did they accuse him of? Faking it. . .both the cops and the jury. . .and guess what. . .his conviction was overturned. . .because in his case. . .there was another obvious suspect who benefited financially from his wife's death whom the cops decided to work with rather than investigate. . .because let's face it. . .the husband is ALWAYS guilty. . .even when he's not. . .

The girlfriend thing I'll give you. .. yeah that was very stupid. . .If I ever have a spouse get murdered, you can be darn sure I'm telling all my girlfriends that we gotta cool it for a while. . .and I'm telling the police. .. cause lying to them just raises their hackles. . .yes the marriage wasn't perfect, yes I'm a louse. . .but I sure as heck didn't want any of this. . .

Finally I vehemently object to your negative portrayal of porn. There is nothing wrong with porn in moderation. If your wife has a problem with it. . .get her involved and share the experience. And that's today's helpful tip in the Timewarrior's guide to a healthy happy marriage. . .wait a minute. . .what type of porn was it. . .cause that could indicate why she was upset. . .especially if It was something really freaky. . . :o

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

We could be right and it's interesting to me that you don't see it that way. Anyway, unless or until you have an opinion of your own, I think you have some nerve to try and undermine anyone's opinion.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

OK, your one point is fair. You're right in that first-time killers often do monumentally stupid things that eventually tie them to their crime. However, I didn't simply state this. I also pointed out that there wasn't any evidence whatsoever to show there was ever more than one anchor made. The prosecution knew this, or at the very least, should have. So who was it really that was trying to manipulate?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We could be right...

You and your dog.

...and it's interesting to me that you don't see it that way.

I was only pointing out that there is a possibility that you (and your dog) are wrong.

You have no idea what I think, because you state:

Anyway, unless or until you have an opinion of your own...

...I think you have some nerve to try and undermine anyone's opinion.

Ah yes, especially an animal's?

Really, I have some nerve providing everyone (who is interested) a chance to view information / evidence about the case that could provide reasonable doubt? Hum, and you see this to be undermining (at least upsetting to your dog perhaps)? Ok.

Look, I have enough experience in my career to understand what the problem really is and I'm not going to air that out in the public. HOWEVER, I apologize if you are offended by my posts... please use the Report button feature to report the most offensive of my posts and we'll go from there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You and your dog.

I was only pointing out that there is a possibility that you (and your dog) are wrong.

You have no idea what I think, because you state:

Ah yes, especially an animal's?

Really, I have some nerve providing everyone (who is interested) a chance to view information / evidence about the case that could provide reasonable doubt? Hum, and you see this to be undermining (at least upsetting to your dog perhaps)? Ok.

Look, I have enough experience in my career to understand what the problem really is and I'm not going to air that out in the public. HOWEVER, I apologize if you are offended by my posts... please use the Report button feature to report the most offensive of my posts and we'll go from there.

To be honest, I kinda have a problem that dogs have been given so much authority in our legal system. . .I mean. . .did the cat lobby approve this? What about the conglomerate of goldfish?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was only pointing out that there is a possibility that you (and your dog) are wrong.

Sure you were... and no, there isn't.

I have some nerve providing everyone (who is interested) a chance to view information / evidence about the case that could provide reasonable doubt?

There isn't any such info./evid., but no, it's that you mocked my opinion while you don't even have one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

whatever

:unsure2:

Edited by Aftermath
Link to comment
Share on other sites

All right folks, simmer down. It's ok to disagree and offer differing viewpoints all around. Let's debate and discuss nicely please.

Rashore, moderating team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where did I "mock" your opinion?

When I expressed a very strong opinion of Peterson's guilt and you- for whatever reason- pointed out to me that I could be wrong.

I don't need any such thing pointed out to me, and I wouldn't express such a strong opinion about anything if I thought there was any possibility that I could be wrong, and so for you to do that was to me, mocking my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I expressed a very strong opinion of Peterson's guilt and you- for whatever reason- pointed out to me that I could be wrong.

I don't need any such thing pointed out to me, and I wouldn't express such a strong opinion about anything if I thought there was any possibility that I could be wrong, and so for you to do that was to me, mocking my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would say Scott must have had strangled his wife at the home to leave no evidence there. but her head was found separate from her body that would suggest some kind of injury to the neck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DISCLAIMER: What you are about to read may upset you because I could have an opposing view. Please read at your own risk.

He killed her case closed

May be, may be not.

I have read over a lot of information about the case that gives ME reasonable doubt. I can see how Scott might have killed Laci, but I can also see how the murderer may not have been him. Honestly, I just don't know.

Edited by Aftermath
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

DISCLAIMER: What you are about to read may upset you because I could have an opposing view. Please read at your own risk.

I would say Scott must have had strangled his wife at the home to leave no evidence there. but her head was found separate from her body that would suggest some kind of injury to the neck.

There are very specific ways bodies are disarticulated while in the ocean. Read this, click “Missing Neck (postmortem)”: http://www.pwc-sii.com/Research/death/ribs.htm#did

Laci’s body was found: decapitated, both forearms were missing, the right foot was severed, and the left leg from the knee down was missing. All normal disarticulation; except for the neck area (or decapitation). This is one of the reasons I am on the fence with Scott – I can see where if Scott did strangle her in their home, he then cut off her neck so there wasn’t any evidence of this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DISCLAIMER: What you are about to read may upset you because I could have an opposing view. Please read at your own risk.

There are very specific ways bodies are disarticulated while in the ocean. Read this, click “Missing Neck (postmortem)”: http://www.pwc-sii.c...th/ribs.htm#did

Laci’s body was found: decapitated, both forearms were missing, the right foot was severed, and the left leg from the knee down was missing. All normal disarticulation; except for the neck area (or decapitation). This is one of the reasons I am on the fence with Scott – I can see where if Scott did strangle her in their home, he then cut off her neck so there wasn’t any evidence of this.

I would agree for the most part. But, it doesn't take a genius to figure out a way to prevent blood stains, if you are planning ahead. One of the things I read was that there was a plastic tarp in the shed that had gasoline all over it. And the tarp had been previously in the trunk of the car (Before evidence was being collected, but while they were doing an initial search), and gasoline is one of the common substances which will ruin blood stains on items like plastic tarps. Might have been just a coincidence, since no actual blood was found.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/24, investigators observed the boat cover in the back of Peterson's truck, covering umbrellas Peterson said he'd loaded up that morning to take to the warehouse (but obviously, never followed through with) and the tarp was later found in the shed, soaked with gasoline.

At trial two years later, it still reeked of gasoline.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/24, investigators observed the boat cover in the back of Peterson's truck, covering umbrellas Peterson said he'd loaded up that morning to take to the warehouse (but obviously, never followed through with) and the tarp was later found in the shed, soaked with gasoline.

At trial two years later, it still reeked of gasoline.

This is not accurate. The tarp did not reek of gasoline. This is the relevant testimony(imperfect English) from the criminalist, Pin Kyo:

HARRIS: Starting by showing you 240 A, you can describe for us what this is and what you found when you examined it?

KYO: It's a blue tarp, and I noticed it has a mildewy smells when I received it. So I'm sure you know that when item is used and keep it wet, there is a bacteria buildup and you got mildew smells. So that's kind of smell I got. And I also observed sawdust, dirt, and pollen, like a part of flowers and grass stain, like green, greenish stain. Actually, the dirt stain I was questioning, it was found around here. It -- it appear as a gray stain at the beginning, but when I use a swab, it has a greenish color. So I think that is a dirt -- I mean like a grass stain. And I also found some hairs and fibers on -- on the tarp. On this area over here I found a piece of paper and was -- with tape on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is not accurate. The tarp did not reek of gasoline. This is the relevant testimony(imperfect English) from the criminalist, Pin Kyo:

HARRIS: Starting by showing you 240 A, you can describe for us what this is and what you found when you examined it?

KYO: It's a blue tarp, and I noticed it has a mildewy smells when I received it. So I'm sure you know that when item is used and keep it wet, there is a bacteria buildup and you got mildew smells. So that's kind of smell I got. And I also observed sawdust, dirt, and pollen, like a part of flowers and grass stain, like green, greenish stain. Actually, the dirt stain I was questioning, it was found around here. It -- it appear as a gray stain at the beginning, but when I use a swab, it has a greenish color. So I think that is a dirt -- I mean like a grass stain. And I also found some hairs and fibers on -- on the tarp. On this area over here I found a piece of paper and was -- with tape on it.

It doesn't sound to me as though we're referring to the same thing and so for clarification, I'd need to be able to review the entire trial transcript.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It doesn't sound to me as though we're referring to the same thing and so for clarification, I'd need to be able to review the entire trial transcript.

Are we both not referring to the blue tarp? Was there more than one?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are we both not referring to the blue tarp? Was there more than one?

Evidently.

I don't remember the color of the one I'm referring to but it was later found in a shed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DISCLAIMER: What you are about to read may upset you because I could have an opposing view. Please read at your own risk.

You are talking about different things, however they were both found in the shed.

The boat cover and blue tarp were both in the truck on 24-Dec., later found in the shed when the search warrant was executed on 27-Dec. The boat cover had the "strong odor of gasoline"; but it was the blue tarp the prosecution believed Scott used to transport Laci's body. Follow the links below for more information and clarification:

The boat cover, found in the shed: http://www.pwc-sii.c...ovena/cover.htm

The blue tarp, also found in the shed: http://www.pwc-sii.c...covena/tarp.htm

Edited by Aftermath
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought others might consider the reason why the boat cover was/would be in the shed in the first place.

***

Apparently, the trial transcript isn't available so that it can be read without editorials based on what some phantom, random person considers to be the only relevant, significant testimony. :td:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought others might consider the reason why the boat cover was/would be in the shed in the first place.

***

Apparently, the trial transcript isn't available so that it can be read without editorials based on what some phantom, random person considers to be the only relevant, significant testimony. :td:

Here ya go regi: http://pwc-sii.com/CourtDocs/TranscriptIndex.htm

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

^Well that's at that same site. :lol:

Indeed, I prefer to be informed first, so that I can form my own opinion independent from anyone else. ^_^

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • The title was changed to Was Scott Peterson innocent ?
  • The topic was locked
  • The topic was unlocked
  • This topic was locked and unlocked

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
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.