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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would just like to weigh in with some thoughts about the many comments here which discuss Scott's demeanor and behavior after his wife went missing.

It is common practice in the true crime documentaries to discuss the reactions of certain loved ones and how those reactions are 'all wrong' for a non guilty, grieving person.

That is total BS.

Never mind that there are hundreds of cases of exonerations where the 'shady behaving' defendant turned out to be, OH ACTUALLY INNOCENT!

As a former victim advocate, defense attorney and prosecutor who has been around violent crime victims for decades and seen an entire range of behaviors from ACTUALLY INNOCENT VICTIMS OF CRIME, it makes me really sick to see both lay people and police make assumptions and declarations of guilt based on the behavior of a particular person following their experience of horrific loss.

Human beings react in a whole range of ways to being victim of violent crime or losing a loved one that way. We ALL know people, often in our own families, who don't express emotion the same way we do. We might wail and cry and keen and they might sit silent and stoic and show no emotion - that doesn't make them killers, or even psychologically disturbed. Shock expresses itself in human beings in a range of ways, all of which are normative to that individual.

They said Michael Morton was a murderous bastard who butchered his wife because she didn't give him sex on his birthday and who didn't appear properly upset when he learned of her murder. He spent decades in prison, separated from his son, based on circumstantial evidence most of which was the state - cops and prosecutors - spinning a story about his character based on such ridiculous conclusions. He was ACTUALLY INNOCENT, as the evidence proved after the prosecutors fought for decades to keep it being tested.

Trauma presents in all kinds of ways. Please stop judging how much people emote in response to a traumatic event.

If my wife is murdered, I am not planning to flee to Mexico. In fact, I would call that somewhat atypical.

But you might call your GF from the vigil for your wife and child to tell her you are in Paris and having a blast. Totally normal and innocent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would just like to weigh in with some thoughts about the many comments here which discuss Scott's demeanor and behavior after his wife went missing.

It is common practice in the true crime documentaries to discuss the reactions of certain loved ones and how those reactions are 'all wrong' for a non guilty, grieving person.

That is total BS.

Never mind that there are hundreds of cases of exonerations where the 'shady behaving' defendant turned out to be, OH ACTUALLY INNOCENT!

As a former victim advocate, defense attorney and prosecutor who has been around violent crime victims for decades and seen an entire range of behaviors from ACTUALLY INNOCENT VICTIMS OF CRIME, it makes me really sick to see both lay people and police make assumptions and declarations of guilt based on the behavior of a particular person following their experience of horrific loss.

Human beings react in a whole range of ways to being victim of violent crime or losing a loved one that way. We ALL know people, often in our own families, who don't express emotion the same way we do. We might wail and cry and keen and they might sit silent and stoic and show no emotion - that doesn't make them killers, or even psychologically disturbed. Shock expresses itself in human beings in a range of ways, all of which are normative to that individual.

They said Michael Morton was a murderous bastard who butchered his wife because she didn't give him sex on his birthday and who didn't appear properly upset when he learned of her murder. He spent decades in prison, separated from his son, based on circumstantial evidence most of which was the state - cops and prosecutors - spinning a story about his character based on such ridiculous conclusions. He was ACTUALLY INNOCENT, as the evidence proved after the prosecutors fought for decades to keep it being tested.

Trauma presents in all kinds of ways. Please stop judging how much people emote in response to a traumatic event.

If my wife is murdered, I am not planning to flee to Mexico. In fact, I would call that somewhat atypical.

Investigators were suspicious of Scott a long time before that happened, as you well know.

And there are, in fact, cases in which actually innocent people planned to flee or did flee from the jurisdiction because of their fear of state authorities railroading them into wrongful conviction.

I am not even bothered by the fleeing, it's literally all the other things this jackass did regarding the GF.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would just like to weigh in with some thoughts about the many comments here which discuss Scott's demeanor and behavior after his wife went missing.

It is common practice in the true crime documentaries to discuss the reactions of certain loved ones and how those reactions are 'all wrong' for a non guilty, grieving person.

That is total BS.

Never mind that there are hundreds of cases of exonerations where the 'shady behaving' defendant turned out to be, OH ACTUALLY INNOCENT!

As a former victim advocate, defense attorney and prosecutor who has been around violent crime victims for decades and seen an entire range of behaviors from ACTUALLY INNOCENT VICTIMS OF CRIME, it makes me really sick to see both lay people and police make assumptions and declarations of guilt based on the behavior of a particular person following their experience of horrific loss.

Human beings react in a whole range of ways to being victim of violent crime or losing a loved one that way. We ALL know people, often in our own families, who don't express emotion the same way we do. We might wail and cry and keen and they might sit silent and stoic and show no emotion - that doesn't make them killers, or even psychologically disturbed. Shock expresses itself in human beings in a range of ways, all of which are normative to that individual.

They said Michael Morton was a murderous bastard who butchered his wife because she didn't give him sex on his birthday and who didn't appear properly upset when he learned of her murder. He spent decades in prison, separated from his son, based on circumstantial evidence most of which was the state - cops and prosecutors - spinning a story about his character based on such ridiculous conclusions. He was ACTUALLY INNOCENT, as the evidence proved after the prosecutors fought for decades to keep it being tested.

Trauma presents in all kinds of ways. Please stop judging how much people emote in response to a traumatic event.

If my wife is murdered, I am not planning to flee to Mexico. In fact, I would call that somewhat atypical.

Investigators were suspicious of Scott a long time before that happened, as you well know.

And there are, in fact, cases in which actually innocent people planned to flee or did flee from the jurisdiction because of their fear of state authorities railroading them into wrongful conviction.

Because I would look even more innocent hiding out in Mexico.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would just like to weigh in with some thoughts about the many comments here which discuss Scott's demeanor and behavior after his wife went missing.

It is common practice in the true crime documentaries to discuss the reactions of certain loved ones and how those reactions are 'all wrong' for a non guilty, grieving person.

That is total BS.

Never mind that there are hundreds of cases of exonerations where the 'shady behaving' defendant turned out to be, OH ACTUALLY INNOCENT!

As a former victim advocate, defense attorney and prosecutor who has been around violent crime victims for decades and seen an entire range of behaviors from ACTUALLY INNOCENT VICTIMS OF CRIME, it makes me really sick to see both lay people and police make assumptions and declarations of guilt based on the behavior of a particular person following their experience of horrific loss.

Human beings react in a whole range of ways to being victim of violent crime or losing a loved one that way. We ALL know people, often in our own families, who don't express emotion the same way we do. We might wail and cry and keen and they might sit silent and stoic and show no emotion - that doesn't make them killers, or even psychologically disturbed. Shock expresses itself in human beings in a range of ways, all of which are normative to that individual.

They said Michael Morton was a murderous bastard who butchered his wife because she didn't give him sex on his birthday and who didn't appear properly upset when he learned of her murder. He spent decades in prison, separated from his son, based on circumstantial evidence most of which was the state - cops and prosecutors - spinning a story about his character based on such ridiculous conclusions. He was ACTUALLY INNOCENT, as the evidence proved after the prosecutors fought for decades to keep it being tested.

Trauma presents in all kinds of ways. Please stop judging how much people emote in response to a traumatic event.

If my wife is murdered, I am not planning to flee to Mexico. In fact, I would call that somewhat atypical.

But you might call your GF from the vigil for your wife and child to tell her you are in Paris and having a blast. Totally normal and innocent.

+1 and you also might tell your GF your wife had died, ahead of her murder.

[Anonymous]

And dye your hair and have $15,000 in cash...yep...a truly grief stricken husband. We're all saddened.

[Anonymous]

While I have always believed that Scott Peterson was guilty of murdering his pregnant wife, the lack of any physical evidence always gave me minimum doubt.

I think my mind would definitely be open to switching my opinion around if any new evidence exonerated him.

[Anonymous]

*Especially any DNA 🧬 evidence

[Anonymous]

If any of you go into the relationship forum, there are many posts from people in unhappy marriages.

Sure some claim happiness, but a lot of people write how unhappy they are.

Common reasons I see there are cheating, lying, addiction + lack of physical attraction.
Some couples are dealing with mental illness or ADHD, Asperger’s, etc.

Or some people just have grown apart & are no longer compatible any longer.

Many people state that they are staying in the marriage for the children and/or financial reasons.

It is a possibility that Scott + Laci could have been dealing w/their own, unique marital issues.
None of us know that for sure.
Hence the affair.

Perhaps Scott was staying w/his pregnant wife for the duration of her pregnancy or he could have had plans to stay for his child.
If that were the case, then he would not grieve in the same manner as a spouse who was in a loving union.

I think once it was found out that he had a mistress, at the time people automatically painted him out to be a killer.

But killer and murderers are not one and the same.

And if I were a suspect in a murder that was drawing national attention - I could see myself escaping especially if people were all pointing fingers my way and judging me.

Not saying I think Scott is a murderer.

Just trying to view it from a specific angle is all…..

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:While I have always believed that Scott Peterson was guilty of murdering his pregnant wife, the lack of any physical evidence always gave me minimum doubt.

I think my mind would definitely be open to switching my opinion around if any new evidence exonerated him.

If he truly believed his pregnant wife had been horrifically murdered and that his almost born baby had died, I do not believe that he would have dyed his hair, changed his appearance, and been caught with $15,000 in cash heading out of the country.
I'm waiting for this newest attempt with DNA to show once again that he's guilty.

[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. 🤯

Did the burglars have access to a boat? Concrete anchors? Why go out on the water in the freezing temps to dump a body when they could literally dump her anywhere else with less effort.

Also, why would burglars have driven 80 miles to the SF Bay to dump the body? There are plenty of rivers, canals, fields, orchards near Modesto.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If any of you go into the relationship forum, there are many posts from people in unhappy marriages.

Sure some claim happiness, but a lot of people write how unhappy they are.

Common reasons I see there are cheating, lying, addiction + lack of physical attraction.
Some couples are dealing with mental illness or ADHD, Asperger’s, etc.

Or some people just have grown apart & are no longer compatible any longer.

Many people state that they are staying in the marriage for the children and/or financial reasons.

It is a possibility that Scott + Laci could have been dealing w/their own, unique marital issues.
None of us know that for sure.
Hence the affair.

Perhaps Scott was staying w/his pregnant wife for the duration of her pregnancy or he could have had plans to stay for his child.
If that were the case, then he would not grieve in the same manner as a spouse who was in a loving union.

I think once it was found out that he had a mistress, at the time people automatically painted him out to be a killer.

But killer and murderers are not one and the same.

And if I were a suspect in a murder that was drawing national attention - I could see myself escaping especially if people were all pointing fingers my way and judging me.

Not saying I think Scott is a murderer.

Just trying to view it from a specific angle is all…..

If I view the moon landing from a specific angle, it was faked. That doesn't make it reality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would just like to weigh in with some thoughts about the many comments here which discuss Scott's demeanor and behavior after his wife went missing.

It is common practice in the true crime documentaries to discuss the reactions of certain loved ones and how those reactions are 'all wrong' for a non guilty, grieving person.

That is total BS.

Never mind that there are hundreds of cases of exonerations where the 'shady behaving' defendant turned out to be, OH ACTUALLY INNOCENT!

As a former victim advocate, defense attorney and prosecutor who has been around violent crime victims for decades and seen an entire range of behaviors from ACTUALLY INNOCENT VICTIMS OF CRIME, it makes me really sick to see both lay people and police make assumptions and declarations of guilt based on the behavior of a particular person following their experience of horrific loss.

Human beings react in a whole range of ways to being victim of violent crime or losing a loved one that way. We ALL know people, often in our own families, who don't express emotion the same way we do. We might wail and cry and keen and they might sit silent and stoic and show no emotion - that doesn't make them killers, or even psychologically disturbed. Shock expresses itself in human beings in a range of ways, all of which are normative to that individual.

They said Michael Morton was a murderous bastard who butchered his wife because she didn't give him sex on his birthday and who didn't appear properly upset when he learned of her murder. He spent decades in prison, separated from his son, based on circumstantial evidence most of which was the state - cops and prosecutors - spinning a story about his character based on such ridiculous conclusions. He was ACTUALLY INNOCENT, as the evidence proved after the prosecutors fought for decades to keep it being tested.

Trauma presents in all kinds of ways. Please stop judging how much people emote in response to a traumatic event.

If my wife is murdered, I am not planning to flee to Mexico. In fact, I would call that somewhat atypical.

But you might call your GF from the vigil for your wife and child to tell her you are in Paris and having a blast. Totally normal and innocent.

+1 and you also might tell your GF your wife had died, ahead of her murder.

There is no way to misinterpret his behavior. This is far from “everyone grieves differently” nonsense. This is straight up sociopathy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would just like to weigh in with some thoughts about the many comments here which discuss Scott's demeanor and behavior after his wife went missing.

It is common practice in the true crime documentaries to discuss the reactions of certain loved ones and how those reactions are 'all wrong' for a non guilty, grieving person.

That is total BS.

Never mind that there are hundreds of cases of exonerations where the 'shady behaving' defendant turned out to be, OH ACTUALLY INNOCENT!

As a former victim advocate, defense attorney and prosecutor who has been around violent crime victims for decades and seen an entire range of behaviors from ACTUALLY INNOCENT VICTIMS OF CRIME, it makes me really sick to see both lay people and police make assumptions and declarations of guilt based on the behavior of a particular person following their experience of horrific loss.

Human beings react in a whole range of ways to being victim of violent crime or losing a loved one that way. We ALL know people, often in our own families, who don't express emotion the same way we do. We might wail and cry and keen and they might sit silent and stoic and show no emotion - that doesn't make them killers, or even psychologically disturbed. Shock expresses itself in human beings in a range of ways, all of which are normative to that individual.

They said Michael Morton was a murderous bastard who butchered his wife because she didn't give him sex on his birthday and who didn't appear properly upset when he learned of her murder. He spent decades in prison, separated from his son, based on circumstantial evidence most of which was the state - cops and prosecutors - spinning a story about his character based on such ridiculous conclusions. He was ACTUALLY INNOCENT, as the evidence proved after the prosecutors fought for decades to keep it being tested.

Trauma presents in all kinds of ways. Please stop judging how much people emote in response to a traumatic event.

If my wife is murdered, I am not planning to flee to Mexico. In fact, I would call that somewhat atypical.

But you might call your GF from the vigil for your wife and child to tell her you are in Paris and having a blast. Totally normal and innocent.

+1 and you also might tell your GF your wife had died, ahead of her murder.

There is no way to misinterpret his behavior. This is far from “everyone grieves differently” nonsense. This is straight up sociopathy.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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. 🤯

Did the burglars have access to a boat? Concrete anchors? Why go out on the water in the freezing temps to dump a body when they could literally dump her anywhere else with less effort.

Also, why would burglars have driven 80 miles to the SF Bay to dump the body? There are plenty of rivers, canals, fields, orchards near Modesto.

It was already in the news that Scott had been out there fishing. The burglars could have dumped the body there after they heard that information, to further incriminate Scott and avoid being caught. However I’m not sure how they would have gone about that without being noticed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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. 🤯

Did the burglars have access to a boat? Concrete anchors? Why go out on the water in the freezing temps to dump a body when they could literally dump her anywhere else with less effort.

Also, why would burglars have driven 80 miles to the SF Bay to dump the body? There are plenty of rivers, canals, fields, orchards near Modesto.

It was already in the news that Scott had been out there fishing. The burglars could have dumped the body there after they heard that information, to further incriminate Scott and avoid being caught. However I’m not sure how they would have gone about that without being noticed.

Occam's razor = he dumped the body while "fishing." Not some cockamamie set-up scheme, which would have entailed their holding onto her dead body (wtf?) until they heard the news of his activity during the murder window. Only an absolute moron would believe the latter.