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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What a tremendous waste of LAIP funds. Will not donate to this local project again.
-IP lawyer

...sure you are

[Anonymous]

I’m watching the docuseries and now I’m not so sure he did it, either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What a tremendous waste of LAIP funds. Will not donate to this local project again.
-IP lawyer

...sure you are

Why would anyone make up being an IP lawyer?

[Anonymous]

I want to hear the new, compelling evidence that made the LA Innocence Project take this case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know that Scott Peterson did a lot of questionable things during his wife’s Laci’s disappearance as well as after her + Conner’s death.

First he claimed he played golf, then he said he actually went fishing.
He bought a new boat and Laci & Conner’s dead bodies were discovered in the area where he had been fishing.

It was also strange how he tried to sell his house as well as Laci’s vehicle shortly afterward.
And of course, having an affair while your wife is due to have your first baby is not a good look at all.

However, these are ALL circumstantial things.
Sure Scott is a lying, cheating rat of a husband.

But to convict him beyond a reasonable doubt would be actual evidence presented linking him directly to the crime.
Not simply basing his conviction on his nefarious behavior.

He and Laci could have been in a bad stage in their marriage. Perhaps they were staying together temporarily because she was expecting. This could explain his affair and his seemingly blasé attitude after she disappeared.
And while his actions made him appear suspect to some people, they do not necessarily point to him as a cold blooded murderer.

Playing Devil’s Advocate here, while I feel Scott likely did kill his wife, I don’t know as a juror on his case if the evidence was strong enough to put him behind bars.

Why on earth would any killer go thru the trouble of abducting a heavily pregnant woman and taking her out to sea to dispose of her body? A random killer would’ve left her in the house

The answer to this is simple:

If Laci was a witness + saw something that could possibly indict others in a criminal matter then the criminals involved would have zero issues on murdering her, then dumping her body into a bag of water.

Especially if they were high on drugs. 🤯

[Anonymous]

*bay

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know that Scott Peterson did a lot of questionable things during his wife’s Laci’s disappearance as well as after her + Conner’s death.

First he claimed he played golf, then he said he actually went fishing.
He bought a new boat and Laci & Conner’s dead bodies were discovered in the area where he had been fishing.

It was also strange how he tried to sell his house as well as Laci’s vehicle shortly afterward.
And of course, having an affair while your wife is due to have your first baby is not a good look at all.

However, these are ALL circumstantial things.
Sure Scott is a lying, cheating rat of a husband.

But to convict him beyond a reasonable doubt would be actual evidence presented linking him directly to the crime.
Not simply basing his conviction on his nefarious behavior.

He and Laci could have been in a bad stage in their marriage. Perhaps they were staying together temporarily because she was expecting. This could explain his affair and his seemingly blasé attitude after she disappeared.
And while his actions made him appear suspect to some people, they do not necessarily point to him as a cold blooded murderer.

Playing Devil’s Advocate here, while I feel Scott likely did kill his wife, I don’t know as a juror on his case if the evidence was strong enough to put him behind bars.

Why on earth would any killer go thru the trouble of abducting a heavily pregnant woman and taking her out to sea to dispose of her body? A random killer would’ve left her in the house

The answer to this is simple:

If Laci was a witness + saw something that could possibly indict others in a criminal matter then the criminals involved would have zero issues on murdering her, then dumping her body into a bag of water.

Especially if they were high on drugs. 🤯

After she was dead she wasn't telling anyone anything. No need to go through the extra effort to disappear here.

And more importantly, in this alternate reality, she was witness to a burglary. The tweakers knew they were burglars. There wasn't anything additional to indict them for, except maybe parking the wrong way on the street. Or are you suggesting, the tweakers killed someone else in front of her?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know that Scott Peterson did a lot of questionable things during his wife’s Laci’s disappearance as well as after her + Conner’s death.

First he claimed he played golf, then he said he actually went fishing.
He bought a new boat and Laci & Conner’s dead bodies were discovered in the area where he had been fishing.

It was also strange how he tried to sell his house as well as Laci’s vehicle shortly afterward.
And of course, having an affair while your wife is due to have your first baby is not a good look at all.

However, these are ALL circumstantial things.
Sure Scott is a lying, cheating rat of a husband.

But to convict him beyond a reasonable doubt would be actual evidence presented linking him directly to the crime.
Not simply basing his conviction on his nefarious behavior.

He and Laci could have been in a bad stage in their marriage. Perhaps they were staying together temporarily because she was expecting. This could explain his affair and his seemingly blasé attitude after she disappeared.
And while his actions made him appear suspect to some people, they do not necessarily point to him as a cold blooded murderer.

Playing Devil’s Advocate here, while I feel Scott likely did kill his wife, I don’t know as a juror on his case if the evidence was strong enough to put him behind bars.

Why on earth would any killer go thru the trouble of abducting a heavily pregnant woman and taking her out to sea to dispose of her body? A random killer would’ve left her in the house

The answer to this is simple:

If Laci was a witness + saw something that could possibly indict others in a criminal matter then the criminals involved would have zero issues on murdering her, then dumping her body into a bag of water.

Especially if they were high on drugs. 🤯

Again, petty burglary does not equal double murder. How many people high on drugs are able to carry out the perfect untraceable double murder in broad daylight with no witnesses and no evidence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know that Scott Peterson did a lot of questionable things during his wife’s Laci’s disappearance as well as after her + Conner’s death.

First he claimed he played golf, then he said he actually went fishing.
He bought a new boat and Laci & Conner’s dead bodies were discovered in the area where he had been fishing.

It was also strange how he tried to sell his house as well as Laci’s vehicle shortly afterward.
And of course, having an affair while your wife is due to have your first baby is not a good look at all.

However, these are ALL circumstantial things.
Sure Scott is a lying, cheating rat of a husband.

But to convict him beyond a reasonable doubt would be actual evidence presented linking him directly to the crime.
Not simply basing his conviction on his nefarious behavior.

He and Laci could have been in a bad stage in their marriage. Perhaps they were staying together temporarily because she was expecting. This could explain his affair and his seemingly blasé attitude after she disappeared.
And while his actions made him appear suspect to some people, they do not necessarily point to him as a cold blooded murderer.

Playing Devil’s Advocate here, while I feel Scott likely did kill his wife, I don’t know as a juror on his case if the evidence was strong enough to put him behind bars.

Why on earth would any killer go thru the trouble of abducting a heavily pregnant woman and taking her out to sea to dispose of her body? A random killer would’ve left her in the house

The answer to this is simple:

If Laci was a witness + saw something that could possibly indict others in a criminal matter then the criminals involved would have zero issues on murdering her, then dumping her body into a bag of water.

Especially if they were high on drugs. 🤯

Again, petty burglary does not equal double murder. How many people high on drugs are able to carry out the perfect untraceable double murder in broad daylight with no witnesses and no evidence.

You forgot that they left the van they used to commit the murder at the scene of the crime. They probably ubered to the marina.

[Anonymous]

It would be impossible to believe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know that Scott Peterson did a lot of questionable things during his wife’s Laci’s disappearance as well as after her + Conner’s death.

First he claimed he played golf, then he said he actually went fishing.
He bought a new boat and Laci & Conner’s dead bodies were discovered in the area where he had been fishing.

It was also strange how he tried to sell his house as well as Laci’s vehicle shortly afterward.
And of course, having an affair while your wife is due to have your first baby is not a good look at all.

However, these are ALL circumstantial things.
Sure Scott is a lying, cheating rat of a husband.

But to convict him beyond a reasonable doubt would be actual evidence presented linking him directly to the crime.
Not simply basing his conviction on his nefarious behavior.

I’ve sat on several juries (DC resident, not a lawyer; they love me) and have been reminded several times that circumstantial evidence IS actual evidence. It isn’t a lesser kind of evidence; it just involves more dot-connection. Hardly any crimes are solved based on direct evidence, eg eye witness testimony or video of the crime.

Actually, there is direct evidence in the vast majority of crimes solved. Perhaps less so in the cases that go to trial.

[Anonymous]

How common is it to get sentenced to death with no evidence that you committed a crime? We all assumed guilt because he was having an affair and the body turned up in the marina. But that’s all they had on him. Not one other modicum of evidence. I don’t know what happened to her but it doesn’t seem like the prosecutors did either and sent him to death row with a lot of shady practices.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How common is it to get sentenced to death with no evidence that you committed a crime? We all assumed guilt because he was having an affair and the body turned up in the marina. But that’s all they had on him. Not one other modicum of evidence. I don’t know what happened to her but it doesn’t seem like the prosecutors did either and sent him to death row with a lot of shady practices.

Beyond-reasonable-doubt suspicious that he happened to be "fishing" at the time her body was dumped in the water. He told his mistress his wife was dead ahead of time. He didn't distribute any of the missing flyers and evinced no emotion when his wife and baby's BODIES were found. None. Because he already knew they were dead and wasn't sad about it. He's never expressed any particular emotion or interest in determining the "actual killers." Just like OJ.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I want to hear the new, compelling evidence that made the LA Innocence Project take this case.

It isn't new evidence. Burglary in neighborhood earlier that month, burned out van, blood on mattress, possible sightings a little later than originally thought. Other than DNA testing of the blood, all already considered and discarded in light of the combined weight of Scott's motive, opportunity, lack of emotion throughout the entire process, and coincidental marina excursion that day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I want to hear the new, compelling evidence that made the LA Innocence Project take this case.

It isn't new evidence. Burglary in neighborhood earlier that month, burned out van, blood on mattress, possible sightings a little later than originally thought. Other than DNA testing of the blood, all already considered and discarded in light of the combined weight of Scott's motive, opportunity, lack of emotion throughout the entire process, and coincidental marina excursion that day.

Burglary in the neighborhood that same day! The jury never got to hear about it. I don’t know if he did it but it sure doesn’t sound like he got a fair trial.