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

[Anonymous]

Well, I don't have an opinion at this point, but I do think two things could absolutely be true at once...SP is a deranged sociopath and he didn't kill his wife. Innocent people are not always innocent.

[Anonymous]

The notion that Peterson is a deranged sociopath because he told his side piece he was a widower seems a stretch to me. That assumes he methodically planned to kill Laci and Conner - but for what purpose?

Scott was a serial philanderer, as philanderers often are. https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2004/09/28/defense-scott-cheated-on-laci-before/amp/

A few pages back someone posted a People interview with Mark Geragos in which he discusses his honest belief in Scott’s innocence. (Defense attorneys are not naive, do not typically get hoodwinked by clients and after decades of practice have very good radar for actual innocence.) Geragos spoke to the total lack of real motive for Scott to have killed Laci. He had never claimed to love Frey, he was very excited to become a dad according to all the friends and family (including Laci’s family who initially were entirely in his corner), and he’d cheated repeatedly over the course of the relationship without ever expressing any intention to leave Laci, who forgave his cheating. Prior cheating partners were also lied to - he’s not married, he’s getting divorced.

He’s a widower is well within the lexicon of married men on the prowl for a side piece, I know because it’s happened to me and years ago I participated on a forum for ‘other women and other men’ where many OWs who were hoodwinked into an affair with a married were told their lover was a widower. It’s an automatic sympathy boost for men and women and elicits a whole other level of fawning response from affair partners beyond the usual new lover intensity. Bereaved widowers are like catnip to some women, proof of a devoted man and all.

I really don’t think that Scott’s poor character alone should be sufficient evidence to convict him.

I hope the DNA from the van is tested and if that very plausible alternative theory of the crime doesn’t pan out, then I won’t be so concerned that a miscarriage of justice might have occurred.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The notion that Peterson is a deranged sociopath because he told his side piece he was a widower seems a stretch to me. That assumes he methodically planned to kill Laci and Conner - but for what purpose?

Scott was a serial philanderer, as philanderers often are. https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2004/09/28/defense-scott-cheated-on-laci-before/amp/

A few pages back someone posted a People interview with Mark Geragos in which he discusses his honest belief in Scott’s innocence. (Defense attorneys are not naive, do not typically get hoodwinked by clients and after decades of practice have very good radar for actual innocence.) Geragos spoke to the total lack of real motive for Scott to have killed Laci. He had never claimed to love Frey, he was very excited to become a dad according to all the friends and family (including Laci’s family who initially were entirely in his corner), and he’d cheated repeatedly over the course of the relationship without ever expressing any intention to leave Laci, who forgave his cheating. Prior cheating partners were also lied to - he’s not married, he’s getting divorced.

He’s a widower is well within the lexicon of married men on the prowl for a side piece, I know because it’s happened to me and years ago I participated on a forum for ‘other women and other men’ where many OWs who were hoodwinked into an affair with a married were told their lover was a widower. It’s an automatic sympathy boost for men and women and elicits a whole other level of fawning response from affair partners beyond the usual new lover intensity. Bereaved widowers are like catnip to some women, proof of a devoted man and all.

I really don’t think that Scott’s poor character alone should be sufficient evidence to convict him.

I hope the DNA from the van is tested and if that very plausible alternative theory of the crime doesn’t pan out, then I won’t be so concerned that a miscarriage of justice might have occurred.

Does $250,000 create a suitable motive?

https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna9778652

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The notion that Peterson is a deranged sociopath because he told his side piece he was a widower seems a stretch to me. That assumes he methodically planned to kill Laci and Conner - but for what purpose?

Scott was a serial philanderer, as philanderers often are. https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2004/09/28/defense-scott-cheated-on-laci-before/amp/

A few pages back someone posted a People interview with Mark Geragos in which he discusses his honest belief in Scott’s innocence. (Defense attorneys are not naive, do not typically get hoodwinked by clients and after decades of practice have very good radar for actual innocence.) Geragos spoke to the total lack of real motive for Scott to have killed Laci. He had never claimed to love Frey, he was very excited to become a dad according to all the friends and family (including Laci’s family who initially were entirely in his corner), and he’d cheated repeatedly over the course of the relationship without ever expressing any intention to leave Laci, who forgave his cheating. Prior cheating partners were also lied to - he’s not married, he’s getting divorced.

He’s a widower is well within the lexicon of married men on the prowl for a side piece, I know because it’s happened to me and years ago I participated on a forum for ‘other women and other men’ where many OWs who were hoodwinked into an affair with a married were told their lover was a widower. It’s an automatic sympathy boost for men and women and elicits a whole other level of fawning response from affair partners beyond the usual new lover intensity. Bereaved widowers are like catnip to some women, proof of a devoted man and all.

I really don’t think that Scott’s poor character alone should be sufficient evidence to convict him.

I hope the DNA from the van is tested and if that very plausible alternative theory of the crime doesn’t pan out, then I won’t be so concerned that a miscarriage of justice might have occurred.

I posted that People article. I agree with everything you said here. Amber was also a single mother with an 18 month old so the whole motive of not wanting h to be a father wouldn’t work with her. They also only met up around 5 or so times in the 1.5 months before Laci’s disappearance. It seems that Scott didn’t get a fair trial from police, media the public and especially the jury. I truly believe he’s innocent.

[Anonymous]

I watched the pro-Scott documentary expecting to be underwhelmed and I’m squarely now in the 50/50 camp on if he did it.

[Anonymous]

It’s amazing what money can accomplish. You can get a misleading documentary made about your case. You can keep paying for appeals.

I wonder if his family will ever accept that he’s a killer. I guess it’s easier to kick that can down the road when you can pay people to validate your erroneous beliefs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I watched the pro-Scott documentary expecting to be underwhelmed and I’m squarely now in the 50/50 camp on if he did it.

Listen to The Prosecutors podcast breakdown on it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The notion that Peterson is a deranged sociopath because he told his side piece he was a widower seems a stretch to me. That assumes he methodically planned to kill Laci and Conner - but for what purpose?

Scott was a serial philanderer, as philanderers often are. https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2004/09/28/defense-scott-cheated-on-laci-before/amp/

A few pages back someone posted a People interview with Mark Geragos in which he discusses his honest belief in Scott’s innocence. (Defense attorneys are not naive, do not typically get hoodwinked by clients and after decades of practice have very good radar for actual innocence.) Geragos spoke to the total lack of real motive for Scott to have killed Laci. He had never claimed to love Frey, he was very excited to become a dad according to all the friends and family (including Laci’s family who initially were entirely in his corner), and he’d cheated repeatedly over the course of the relationship without ever expressing any intention to leave Laci, who forgave his cheating. Prior cheating partners were also lied to - he’s not married, he’s getting divorced.

He’s a widower is well within the lexicon of married men on the prowl for a side piece, I know because it’s happened to me and years ago I participated on a forum for ‘other women and other men’ where many OWs who were hoodwinked into an affair with a married were told their lover was a widower. It’s an automatic sympathy boost for men and women and elicits a whole other level of fawning response from affair partners beyond the usual new lover intensity. Bereaved widowers are like catnip to some women, proof of a devoted man and all.

I really don’t think that Scott’s poor character alone should be sufficient evidence to convict him.

I hope the DNA from the van is tested and if that very plausible alternative theory of the crime doesn’t pan out, then I won’t be so concerned that a miscarriage of justice might have occurred.

Scott did NOT want to be a dad. He barely cared when Laci went missing. Why did he leave the fliers in his car trunk and not delivery them? Because he knew they were dead. Why did he use Connor's room as extra storage when they were missing? Most people would be devastated. He was not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s amazing what money can accomplish. You can get a misleading documentary made about your case. You can keep paying for appeals.

I wonder if his family will ever accept that he’s a killer. I guess it’s easier to kick that can down the road when you can pay people to validate your erroneous beliefs.

Isn't the Innocence Project a non-profit? Are they being paid by the Peterson family or took it on themselves pro bono?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s amazing what money can accomplish. You can get a misleading documentary made about your case. You can keep paying for appeals.

I wonder if his family will ever accept that he’s a killer. I guess it’s easier to kick that can down the road when you can pay people to validate your erroneous beliefs.

Isn't the Innocence Project a non-profit? Are they being paid by the Peterson family or took it on themselves pro bono?

I wasn’t talking about the innocence project. Without the misleading documentary, this wouldn’t still be going on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s amazing what money can accomplish. You can get a misleading documentary made about your case. You can keep paying for appeals.

I wonder if his family will ever accept that he’s a killer. I guess it’s easier to kick that can down the road when you can pay people to validate your erroneous beliefs.

Isn't the Innocence Project a non-profit? Are they being paid by the Peterson family or took it on themselves pro bono?

I wasn’t talking about the innocence project. Without the misleading documentary, this wouldn’t still be going on.

Documentaries document the facts surrounding an event. There can't possibly be any bias if you are covering the facts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s amazing what money can accomplish. You can get a misleading documentary made about your case. You can keep paying for appeals.

I wonder if his family will ever accept that he’s a killer. I guess it’s easier to kick that can down the road when you can pay people to validate your erroneous beliefs.

Isn't the Innocence Project a non-profit? Are they being paid by the Peterson family or took it on themselves pro bono?

I wasn’t talking about the innocence project. Without the misleading documentary, this wouldn’t still be going on.

Documentaries document the facts surrounding an event. There can't possibly be any bias if you are covering the facts.

They selectively documented some of the facts, and highlighted questionable information, and presented it as fact.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s amazing what money can accomplish. You can get a misleading documentary made about your case. You can keep paying for appeals.

I wonder if his family will ever accept that he’s a killer. I guess it’s easier to kick that can down the road when you can pay people to validate your erroneous beliefs.

Isn't the Innocence Project a non-profit? Are they being paid by the Peterson family or took it on themselves pro bono?

I wasn’t talking about the innocence project. Without the misleading documentary, this wouldn’t still be going on.

Documentaries document the facts surrounding an event. There can't possibly be any bias if you are covering the facts.

You are most naive if you truly believe documentaries don't edit information and present information with a slant, whether intentional or not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s amazing what money can accomplish. You can get a misleading documentary made about your case. You can keep paying for appeals.

I wonder if his family will ever accept that he’s a killer. I guess it’s easier to kick that can down the road when you can pay people to validate your erroneous beliefs.

+1 documentaries have become propaganda pieces. Rarely are they objective now. My mind is blown how many people have for the Scott Peterson is innocent propaganda train that’s circulating online now.

[Anonymous]

For those who fell for the documentary:

The dog was found wandering around 15 min before the burgled neighbor left their house.

All the sightings of Laci report black pants and a white shirt. She was not found in black pants and a white shirt. She was found wearing tan pants. The burglars said they robbed the house on the 26th, two days after she went missing.