elvismay Posted March 20, 2006 #1 Share Posted March 20, 2006 (edited) So do you guy's think Scott Peterson killed his wife? I justed watched the TV movie about this the other day. I'm not too up on all the facts. Wasn't her head missing? If Scott was going to try to get rid of his wife, why would he chop her head off? stv Sorry, I spelled the name wrong, it's Laci..I couldn't change the title after I posted! Edited March 20, 2006 by elvismay Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+joc Posted March 20, 2006 #2 Share Posted March 20, 2006 So do you guy's think Scott Peterson killed his wife? I justed watched the TV movie about this the other day. I'm not too up on all the facts. Scott is on death row in California for her murder. A jury believed he killed her. Ajury believed he should die for her murder. Good enough for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
et's daddy Posted March 20, 2006 #3 Share Posted March 20, 2006 yes, he did it i dont know about the head thing, but people do strange things to try and cover up murder and throw the cops off the trail Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shakezulah Posted March 20, 2006 #4 Share Posted March 20, 2006 I completely believe that he did it. The evidence was obviously good enough to convince a jury. I don't ever remember hearing that her head was missing, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nxt2Hvn Posted March 20, 2006 #5 Share Posted March 20, 2006 What??.... you're kidding me right? Is there any question that this psycho didn't kill her?? I believe 100% that Scott did kill Lacy and their unborn child Connor. And may he fry for it! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nxt2Hvn Posted March 20, 2006 #6 Share Posted March 20, 2006 I completely believe that he did it. The evidence was obviously good enough to convince a jury. I don't ever remember hearing that her head was missing, though. And yep...Shakezulah ... only her torso was found... no head and no hands for finger prints.. that is why they had to use DNA for identifying her body. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nxt2Hvn Posted March 20, 2006 #7 Share Posted March 20, 2006 (edited) So do you guy's think Scott Peterson killed his wife? I justed watched the TV movie about this the other day. I'm not too up on all the facts. Wasn't her head missing? If Scott was going to try to get rid of his wife, why would he chop her head off? stv Sorry, I spelled the name wrong, it's Laci..I couldn't change the title after I posted! I don't think they ever proved that he actually chopped her head off, the assumption is that her body was possibly weighed down and the thrashing of the water and her body decomposing caused her head and arms and legs to detach... her head was never found. Sorry so gory. Edited March 20, 2006 by Nxt2Hvn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shakezulah Posted March 20, 2006 #8 Share Posted March 20, 2006 And yep...Shakezulah ... only her torso was found... no head and no hands for finger prints.. that is why they had to use DNA for identifying her body. Ah, ok. I didn't know her hands were missing either. If I knew that, It would have made more sense rather than just her head missing, if it is the case of them being cut off. The decomposition and detatching of those parts makes sense, too. She must have been down there quite awhile for that to have happened. Damn, that's sick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
distortedpandy Posted March 21, 2006 #9 Share Posted March 21, 2006 I too believe he did it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michelle Posted March 21, 2006 #10 Share Posted March 21, 2006 I had a gut feeling he did it from the beginning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twpdyp Posted March 21, 2006 #11 Share Posted March 21, 2006 A jury of his peers found Scott Peterson guilty and made the recommendation that he be put to death for his crime, period. I am almost positive that no one here was present at the trial and we most certainly did not hear testimony or see the evidence, so I think we should put our trust in the jury's decision. My only problem is that it will take 15 to 20 years to execute this low life, especially in the state of California. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Momma Acorah Posted March 21, 2006 #12 Share Posted March 21, 2006 He said he didn't do it, we have to repect that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rose_ashes Posted March 21, 2006 #13 Share Posted March 21, 2006 he also killed his wife and unborn child. shall we respect that as well? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvismay Posted March 21, 2006 Author #14 Share Posted March 21, 2006 he also killed his wife and unborn child. shall we respect that as well? we don't know that for sure at all. Just because a jury found Scott guilty doesn't prove anything! All one need's to do is look at the O.J. case to see how the United States Justice system works! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rykster Posted March 21, 2006 #15 Share Posted March 21, 2006 I believe that he is guilty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rose_ashes Posted March 21, 2006 #16 Share Posted March 21, 2006 a lot of people say that there is no concrete evidence against him, but if you look merely at his ACTIONS after her disappearance, you'll find that he ACTED very guilty. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweetpumper Posted March 21, 2006 #17 Share Posted March 21, 2006 He killed Laci and Conner. Anyone who thinks differently is only fooling themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coldethyl Posted March 22, 2006 #18 Share Posted March 22, 2006 I think he did it and I agree with the jury. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bboy Posted March 28, 2006 #19 Share Posted March 28, 2006 He said he didn't do it, we have to repect that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ValkyrieVoice Posted March 29, 2006 #20 Share Posted March 29, 2006 [attachmentid=24352]Laci's head and limbs were missing because those were the areas of her body that were weighed down. Personally? I don't believe for one minute that Scott acted alone. I believe he's covering for the rest of the criminals because if he KNEW that they could kill Laci and Connor, he KNOWS they can kill him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ned Tunacao Posted March 29, 2006 #21 Share Posted March 29, 2006 Replying to Who killed Lacy Peterson? Uggh...Scott Peterson? Damn I'm good! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaKong Posted March 29, 2006 #22 Share Posted March 29, 2006 In all honesty, I don't know. To me it's like the Jack the Ripper case; sure a lot of evidence but also a lot of fingers pointed in the wrong way. I still don't think he's guilty. Why? Don't know. I just do. Most people say that he did it without even researching the facts and just watch the TV. I'm in a Journalism class and I can tell you at times we get a whole lot wrong... I still don't think he's guilty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rosemary Campbell Posted April 12, 2006 #23 Share Posted April 12, 2006 Scott Peterson killed his wife. The day Laci Peterson disappeared I like many thought she was kidnapped by someone who wanted to extract the baby so close to term. As a Psychic Detective I wrote down all the Information on a pad as I quite often do and right away I saw a fight between scott and Laci and it was a very vicious fight. I heard the words he hit her so hard it killed her. I then saw the bedroom in disarray as it would be during a violent fight. I then saw Scott carrying a bundle out of the house and he went several places then ended up at the Bay where they found her body. I sent this information many places but like with much Psychic Information they don't pay much attention to it. Knowing what I knew I watched Scott Peterson pretend he was helping to look for Laci and I knew then what kind of a cool character he was to be able to pull that off. This all began with a vicious domestic situation and sometimes people get hurt and I now say if scott had called 911 maybe they could have removed the baby and saved him. If he had taken those steps then and tried to save his baby and let it turn into another Violent Domestic situation perhaps he would not be sitting on Death Row right now but when he took the actions he did and crassly threw the woman and the unborn child into the Bay and left them for months until they washed up on the Shore there was little chance for him to avoid the death sentence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BishopRyan Posted April 13, 2006 #24 Share Posted April 13, 2006 I agree he killed them. I don't have a doubt in my mind. Although he deserves to fry. I don't agree with the jury. They convicted based on opinion. There was not any real or substantial evidence at all. Nothing. All that was left was opinions to be formed. This was a abortion of our legal system once again. There was way more evidence in the OJ case than this ever saw. Its a perfect example of good juror selection. We need to revamp the whole system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
najaesouljah Posted April 13, 2006 #25 Share Posted April 13, 2006 I belive that he killed her. I'm not all about the death penalty. But if the jury is right, and he did kill his wife(including his unborn child). He deserves to die. Then his maker can judge him . You know something like double jeopardy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now