LA Innocence Project takes up notorious case of convicted wife-killer Scott Peterson

[Anonymous]

Peterson is guilty. Ludicrous to suggest otherwise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Peterson is guilty. Ludicrous to suggest otherwise.

OK MAGA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Peterson is guilty. Ludicrous to suggest otherwise.

OK MAGA.

NP. This kind of nonsensical response is exactly what I’d expect from someone dumb enough to think Peterson is innocent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I used to work in a church alongside his SIL (Janey Peterson) who is always quoted in articles, defending that he would ever kill his wife Laci.

She was a very kind + seemingly logical woman who seemed stable emotionally to me, but I admit once Scott was accused of murder I believed that he did it & started questioning this woman’s common sense.

She moved from San Diego shortly after he was convicted but prior I do recall her saying only great things about Laci so I knew that she wasn’t biased in her belief.
At least that is what I hope!

Anyway I have always thought he was guilty but I also think it is a slippery slope to base guilt on circumstantial evidence only theoretically.

So I also look forward to any new developments in the case.

Scott Peterson’s entire family stood staunchly behind him all along. Larry King said that his father paid over 7 figures for Mark Geragos’s fees. I still remember the crowd jeering at the parents as they exited the courthouse after the verdict was announced.

His mom is a real jerk, and repeatedly degraded Laci's reputation and character. They deserve the jeers.

Wasn't Laci known as a 'party girl'? Like didn't the investigation reveal she had something like 20 partners in the year before they married?

So what? You are such a POS to say this about another women as if it had anything to do with her being murdered by her husband. WTF?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I used to work in a church alongside his SIL (Janey Peterson) who is always quoted in articles, defending that he would ever kill his wife Laci.

She was a very kind + seemingly logical woman who seemed stable emotionally to me, but I admit once Scott was accused of murder I believed that he did it & started questioning this woman’s common sense.

She moved from San Diego shortly after he was convicted but prior I do recall her saying only great things about Laci so I knew that she wasn’t biased in her belief.
At least that is what I hope!

Anyway I have always thought he was guilty but I also think it is a slippery slope to base guilt on circumstantial evidence only theoretically.

So I also look forward to any new developments in the case.

Scott Peterson’s entire family stood staunchly behind him all along. Larry King said that his father paid over 7 figures for Mark Geragos’s fees. I still remember the crowd jeering at the parents as they exited the courthouse after the verdict was announced.

His mom is a real jerk, and repeatedly degraded Laci's reputation and character. They deserve the jeers.

Wasn't Laci known as a 'party girl'? Like didn't the investigation reveal she had something like 20 partners in the year before they married?

So what? You are such a POS to say this about another women as if it had anything to do with her being murdered by her husband. WTF?

+1000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I used to work in a church alongside his SIL (Janey Peterson) who is always quoted in articles, defending that he would ever kill his wife Laci.

She was a very kind + seemingly logical woman who seemed stable emotionally to me, but I admit once Scott was accused of murder I believed that he did it & started questioning this woman’s common sense.

She moved from San Diego shortly after he was convicted but prior I do recall her saying only great things about Laci so I knew that she wasn’t biased in her belief.
At least that is what I hope!

Anyway I have always thought he was guilty but I also think it is a slippery slope to base guilt on circumstantial evidence only theoretically.

So I also look forward to any new developments in the case.

Scott Peterson’s entire family stood staunchly behind him all along. Larry King said that his father paid over 7 figures for Mark Geragos’s fees. I still remember the crowd jeering at the parents as they exited the courthouse after the verdict was announced.

His mom is a real jerk, and repeatedly degraded Laci's reputation and character. They deserve the jeers.

Wasn't Laci known as a 'party girl'? Like didn't the investigation reveal she had something like 20 partners in the year before they married?

So what? You are such a POS to say this about another women as if it had anything to do with her being murdered by her husband. WTF?

It is totally irrelevant and doesn't seem to be true anyway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Peterson is guilty. Ludicrous to suggest otherwise.

OK MAGA.

What on earth does this have to do with this case? Okay you HATE TRUMP! Got it! But he nor those who love him have anything at all to do with this case, for or against. This is just a strange comment that makes zero sense. What is your agenda exactly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Peterson is guilty. Ludicrous to suggest otherwise.

OK MAGA.

What on earth does this have to do with this case? Okay you HATE TRUMP! Got it! But he nor those who love him have anything at all to do with this case, for or against. This is just a strange comment that makes zero sense. What is your agenda exactly.

If you don't agree with the people who are in the right side of an issue, you are MAGA. That's just basic science.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Peterson is guilty. Ludicrous to suggest otherwise.

OK MAGA.

Stop with the MAGA crap. Everyone who has a different opinion is not a supporter of Trump. Get over yourself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Peterson is guilty. Ludicrous to suggest otherwise.

OK MAGA.

Stop with the MAGA crap. Everyone who has a different opinion is not a supporter of Trump. Get over yourself.

I think he/she does that on almost every thread just to stir shit up. Just ignore.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Peterson is guilty. Ludicrous to suggest otherwise.

100% agree. I'd be pissed if I had donated to this organization and they were wasting my money on this dirtbag.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Update from 3 hours ago:

"Lawyers for the nonprofit now fighting for Peterson are focusing on stains from a mattress in the back of a burned van that tested presumptive positive for blood."

https://abc7.com/scott-peterson-case-new-evidence-innocence-project/14352815/

Just…blood? Like, anyone’s blood, not specifically Laci’s?

They have to have so many more deserving cases to work on. I mean, come on.

Yes, presumptive positive for human blood. IT HAS NOT EVER BEEN DNA TESTED - that’s the point of the motion.

Seems like you like to comment without first marshaling facts.

Prosecutors all over this country fight to prevent DNA testing rather than allow someone to prove that they’ve wrongfully convicted an innocent person. Just ask Michael Morton, and hundreds more who have been exonerated by DNA after decades and decades languishing in prison by wrongful conviction.

Neither the mattress or van is known to have any connection to case, and apparently it was tested previously but the dna technology of the time couldn’t make much of it.

This motion and case is an embarrassment to the LA innocence project. Someone saw a one-sided documentary and is trying to make a case of it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not many details yet, but I always assumed he was guilty. For the Innocence Project to get involved does that give anyone else pause to think...."hmmm maybe he is innocent?" If not Scott then the last 20 years have been wasted with any possible suspects being long gone.

https://abc7.com/scott-peterson-innocence-project-laci-murder/14337140/

The motions for DNA testing of evidence and access to other evidence have to do with the burglary across the street from Laci and Scott’s house; the theory that she witnessed the perpetrators on her way home from the dog walk and they abducted her has been in existence for years. The theory also suggests that her body was dumped in the Bay by the real killers after it was widely reported that Scott was fishing there on the day Laci disappeared.

I posted about that theory here a few years ago and people lost their minds berating and ridiculing me, so it’s interesting to see LA Innocence taking up the case as those projects don’t get involved without strong evidence of actual innocence.

If it turns out Laci’s DNA is on the mattress from the burned out can, thus Scott is innocent, how will all the people who demonized him for simply being a run of the mill philanderer going to feel?

Probably just glad he paid for his cheating with a couple decades of his life.

Burned out van, no thanks autocorrect!

You mention the theory and that you posted about it. Just curious, do you think this is what happened?

I think it’s plausible. I encourage folks to watch that recent docuseries on Hulu, or at least the final episode where investigators presented the evidence supporting the alternative theory of the case.

Laci was spotted walking her dog at the park. Her dog was later found trailing its leash outside of the yard. There was a van seen on their street that day. There is also something about the timing of when the mailman saw Laci, or saw the dog. In any case, it adds up to compelling circumstantial evidence and when you factor the timing of Laci’s disappearance and the later discovery of her body and Connor’s, it is entirely possible she was dumped in the Bay by perpetrators seeking to point the finger in the husband’s direction since his whereabouts had been reported extensively in the media.

People get hung up on this one thing so I’ll just also add: for a time some years ago - way before Laci Peterson’s case - I found myself spending some time at a forum called The Other Woman. Yes, a forum for adulterers. I stumbled on it by accident but it was a window into marriage that I was very interested to see - I was unmarried and averse at the time. Anyway my point is I heard a lot of stories about how women ended up with cheating men, and I’m sorry to tell you that it isn’t uncommon for a married man who cheats to ‘kill’ his wife for the convenience of communicating with a lover. I’m sure there is some perverse psychological thing going on there, but yeah, some cheating men claim to be widows probably just for the extra sympathy F factor it compels.

The problem with this theory is that burglars don't just decide to add abduction to an existing crime.

You speak as someone entirely naive of criminal behavior. Again, as someone who has spent decades working in the system, I have seen all kinds of horrific crime arising out of all kinds of circumstances often with zero logic involved.

The Modesto area where Scott and Laci lived is well known for having serious issues with meth, lots of tweakers criminals running around. Tweakers do things that defy reason, and snatching a pregnant woman who saw a couple of tweaker burglars leaving a break-in is actually well within the realm of conceivable for anyone who has worked in the system and seen the random human savagery close up.

Can you find me a case of meth addicts randomly kidnapping a woman that witnessed them commiting a burglary. Even meth addicts act rationally. A kidnapped women is only useful for ransom.

The Peterson case predates the meth epidemic.

No, it does not. Why even post something like this which is so easily disproven?

California has had a methamphetamine problem since the 1970s and it has grown exponentially each decade since.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Peterson is guilty. Ludicrous to suggest otherwise.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Peterson is guilty. Ludicrous to suggest otherwise.

OK MAGA.

Stop with the MAGA crap. Everyone who has a different opinion is not a supporter of Trump. Get over yourself.

+1 People like the previous poster can't help themselves, apparently.