Scott Peterson Netflix Documentary

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In the A&E doc, one of the things that pissed off the detectives is Scott giving one of the cops a coaster for his cup of water. He thought that was suspicious for a man who just lost his wife to do.

It’s ridiculous the stuff they came up with. They just didn’t like Scott. The entire family originally thought she was alive and maybe went into labor and was at a local hospital. Even Sharon Rocha, Lacis mom, criticized the cops and the reporters who implied foul play. The family thought Laci went into labor prematurely.

I think he's guilty, but if for some reason he didn't get a fair trial then he should get one. However, I agree with you that there are dozens of nonsensical tidbits that people cling to as a reason for his guilt.

He had one of the best legal defense teams. He got a fair trial, he just didn’t like the outcome.

He didn’t get a fair trial whatsoever. The judge was on the side of the prosecution and ignored all the defense witnesses who saw Laci arguing with men by a strange van. Many witnesses were adamant they saw Laci walking the dog that morning and she was wearing black pants not beige pants like the pants she was discovered dead in. Scott also told cops the night Laci went missing that she was wearing black pants. The missing person reports from December all said Laci was last seen wearing black maternity pants.

When she was found in the Bay in April, she was for some reason wearing beige pants which confused the officers but they made the assumption Scott probably killed her on the evening of the 23rd when Laci was wearing beige pants at her sister Amy’s hair salon. How would Scott remember what was on Martha Stewart that morning if he killed Laci the evening before? Was he just an avid Martha fan?

Laci’s sister Amy also Identified those beige pants from December 23rd at Laci’s house early on in the investigation in February before Laci’s body was found.

The pants Laci was found in were beige capris not long beige pants like the ones Amy said Laci wore. The capris track more with an April death and it implies Laci was kidnapped and gave birth.

It’s hard to believe she wore beige capris on a cold Christmas Eve walk with the dog. All the witnesses who said they saw a pregnant woman walking a golden retriever said she was wearing long black pants.

She was 5’1”. Her pants are short. They were just her pants from the 23rd.

Yes, there was probably a woman walking a dog with black pants on.

How did Scott correctly guess lemon meringue was made on the Martha Stewart show on the morning of the 24th? On their home computer, someone logged in at 8:45am and went to yahoo! shopping to look up a red scarf and sunflower umbrella stand. Scott did all this?

It would be building his alibi.

Would it also build his alibi to leave a mop and bucket in the kitchen, tell cops he went fishing and washed clothes that day?

Scott wasn’t building any alibi. He was telling the truth about the day, but he didn’t know his actions and his calm demeanor worked against him. Scott said he was thinking by staying calm and acting friendly and giving cops water he’d be helping them take / investigate Laci’s disappearance more seriously. He miscalculated.

He kept hearing from witnesses that they saw Laci walking the dog and arguing with burglars. Scott kept pushing the cops about the burglars but the cops cleared them by polygraph supposedly very early on.

Oh well. Scott could have cleared himself by polygraph but refused. Guilty is as guilty does.

Scott was advised by his father not to. He has a history of cheating and lying. I don’t blame him for refusing to take a polygragh especially by those cops. They already were biased and thought he did it. They wouldn’t have asked the questions or done the test fairly. Polygraphs are not accurate anyway.

The cops were upset Scott and his dad wouldn’t play their game and also wanted to hire private detectives

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In the A&E doc, one of the things that pissed off the detectives is Scott giving one of the cops a coaster for his cup of water. He thought that was suspicious for a man who just lost his wife to do.

It’s ridiculous the stuff they came up with. They just didn’t like Scott. The entire family originally thought she was alive and maybe went into labor and was at a local hospital. Even Sharon Rocha, Lacis mom, criticized the cops and the reporters who implied foul play. The family thought Laci went into labor prematurely.

I think he's guilty, but if for some reason he didn't get a fair trial then he should get one. However, I agree with you that there are dozens of nonsensical tidbits that people cling to as a reason for his guilt.

He had one of the best legal defense teams. He got a fair trial, he just didn’t like the outcome.

He didn’t get a fair trial whatsoever. The judge was on the side of the prosecution and ignored all the defense witnesses who saw Laci arguing with men by a strange van. Many witnesses were adamant they saw Laci walking the dog that morning and she was wearing black pants not beige pants like the pants she was discovered dead in. Scott also told cops the night Laci went missing that she was wearing black pants. The missing person reports from December all said Laci was last seen wearing black maternity pants.

When she was found in the Bay in April, she was for some reason wearing beige pants which confused the officers but they made the assumption Scott probably killed her on the evening of the 23rd when Laci was wearing beige pants at her sister Amy’s hair salon. How would Scott remember what was on Martha Stewart that morning if he killed Laci the evening before? Was he just an avid Martha fan?

Laci’s sister Amy also Identified those beige pants from December 23rd at Laci’s house early on in the investigation in February before Laci’s body was found.

The pants Laci was found in were beige capris not long beige pants like the ones Amy said Laci wore. The capris track more with an April death and it implies Laci was kidnapped and gave birth.

It’s hard to believe she wore beige capris on a cold Christmas Eve walk with the dog. All the witnesses who said they saw a pregnant woman walking a golden retriever said she was wearing long black pants.

She was 5’1”. Her pants are short. They were just her pants from the 23rd.

Yes, there was probably a woman walking a dog with black pants on.

How did Scott correctly guess lemon meringue was made on the Martha Stewart show on the morning of the 24th? On their home computer, someone logged in at 8:45am and went to yahoo! shopping to look up a red scarf and sunflower umbrella stand. Scott did all this?

It would be building his alibi.

Would it also build his alibi to leave a mop and bucket in the kitchen, tell cops he went fishing and washed clothes that day?

Scott wasn’t building any alibi. He was telling the truth about the day, but he didn’t know his actions and his calm demeanor worked against him. Scott said he was thinking by staying calm and acting friendly and giving cops water he’d be helping them take / investigate Laci’s disappearance more seriously. He miscalculated.

He kept hearing from witnesses that they saw Laci walking the dog and arguing with burglars. Scott kept pushing the cops about the burglars but the cops cleared them by polygraph supposedly very early on.

Oh well. Scott could have cleared himself by polygraph but refused. Guilty is as guilty does.

Scott was advised by his father not to. He has a history of cheating and lying. I don’t blame him for refusing to take a polygragh especially by those cops. They already were biased and thought he did it. They wouldn’t have asked the questions or done the test fairly. Polygraphs are not accurate anyway.

The cops were upset Scott and his dad wouldn’t play their game and also wanted to hire private detectives

Scott really showed them!

[Anonymous]

The jurors weren’t even sequestered in this case and they only selected jurors who believed in the death penalty.

The entire trial was unusually biased and unfair. The prosecution knew their actual timeline and case was weak and they feared going up against Geragos and getting an acquittal so they made sure the jury wasn’t sequestered from the news and believed in death penalty because they needed a leg up to win with the weak evidence and case they had

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The jurors weren’t even sequestered in this case and they only selected jurors who believed in the death penalty.

What does “they” even mean? Jurors are selected by both the defense and the prosecution. They both can also dismiss potential jurors during voir dire.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The jurors weren’t even sequestered in this case and they only selected jurors who believed in the death penalty.

What does “they” even mean? Jurors are selected by both the defense and the prosecution. They both can also dismiss potential jurors during voir dire.

The defense had next to little say on anything with this case including jury selection. The judge, the cops, and media were all against the defense. Gloria Allred ambulance chased after Amber Frey in predictable fashion and it became a three ring media circus against Scott.

Jury selection errors is the technical reason Scott’s death sentence was overturned last year.

[Anonymous]

Susan Medina testified that she and her husband pulled out of their driveway at about 10:33 a.m. December 24, 2002 en route to visit family out of town. They returned home at 4:30 p.m. on December 26th and discovered that while they were away, their home had been burglarized.

A Croton watch similar to Lacis inheritance gift from her grandmother was pawned by a woman who happened to know the robbers and the Medina family. Cops didn’t do anything about this watch that was pawned off with missing diamonds and damage. The pawn shop received the watch on Dec 31st

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Susan Medina testified that she and her husband pulled out of their driveway at about 10:33 a.m. December 24, 2002 en route to visit family out of town. They returned home at 4:30 p.m. on December 26th and discovered that while they were away, their home had been burglarized.

A Croton watch similar to Lacis inheritance gift from her grandmother was pawned by a woman who happened to know the robbers and the Medina family. Cops didn’t do anything about this watch that was pawned off with missing diamonds and damage. The pawn shop received the watch on Dec 31st

Okay? So brutal murderers burglarized their home but did nor murder anyone there. They reserved the violence for Laci. Makes lots of sense.

[Anonymous]

Also, maybe the cope didn't see any relationship between a stolen watch and Laci's death when there was a lot of evidence that SCOTT DID IT.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The jurors weren’t even sequestered in this case and they only selected jurors who believed in the death penalty.

What does “they” even mean? Jurors are selected by both the defense and the prosecution. They both can also dismiss potential jurors during voir dire.

The defense had next to little say on anything with this case including jury selection. The judge, the cops, and media were all against the defense. Gloria Allred ambulance chased after Amber Frey in predictable fashion and it became a three ring media circus against Scott.

Jury selection errors is the technical reason Scott’s death sentence was overturned last year.

Yes and they also said no new trial. So what? This is all fantasy by a desperate man who doesn’t want to be in jail. He has all the time in the world to focus on this but his endless legal challenges go nowhere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Susan Medina testified that she and her husband pulled out of their driveway at about 10:33 a.m. December 24, 2002 en route to visit family out of town. They returned home at 4:30 p.m. on December 26th and discovered that while they were away, their home had been burglarized.

A Croton watch similar to Lacis inheritance gift from her grandmother was pawned by a woman who happened to know the robbers and the Medina family. Cops didn’t do anything about this watch that was pawned off with missing diamonds and damage. The pawn shop received the watch on Dec 31st

Okay? So brutal murderers burglarized their home but did nor murder anyone there. They reserved the violence for Laci. Makes lots of sense.

Actually cadavers kept stopping by that house but it’s not like detectives cared. They were so sure non-crying Scott who offered cops water and went fishing did it

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Also, maybe the cope didn't see any relationship between a stolen watch and Laci's death when there was a lot of evidence that SCOTT DID IT.

There was zero evidence SCOTT DID IT.

Fishermen at the marina said they saw right inside Scott’s boat that day and they didn’t see any blue tarp or anchors.

The prosecution created fake police “tips” that the boat was at the marina late night on the 23rd. Zero evidence of that and even more unlikely he’d take his first ride on that boat late at night. Even more unlikely, he’d browse the web and watch Martha Stewart to pretend Laci’s alive that morning but then tell the cops later that evening the exact spot where he went fishing.

That wouldn’t make sense

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The jurors weren’t even sequestered in this case and they only selected jurors who believed in the death penalty.

What does “they” even mean? Jurors are selected by both the defense and the prosecution. They both can also dismiss potential jurors during voir dire.

The defense had next to little say on anything with this case including jury selection. The judge, the cops, and media were all against the defense. Gloria Allred ambulance chased after Amber Frey in predictable fashion and it became a three ring media circus against Scott.

Jury selection errors is the technical reason Scott’s death sentence was overturned last year.

Yes and they also said no new trial. So what? This is all fantasy by a desperate man who doesn’t want to be in jail. He has all the time in the world to focus on this but his endless legal challenges go nowhere.

All of the Innocence Projects do alot of vetting of cases and they look specifically for prosecutiorial or police negligence or misconduct and unfair trials in particular and there were lots in this case.

Prior to LAIP taking Scott’s case, his death sentence was overturned for jury selection misconduct. The prosecution all asked the jurors if they are comfortable with convicting to death. It’s because they wanted a death sentence and a jury more prone to selecting one. They feared Geragos because they didn’t have evidence and there were lots of reasonable doubt.

The biggest omission and lie is the state and cops saying the burglary happened on Dec 26th. The Medina family noted media trucks and news reporters were lined up the street that afternoon when they returned from holiday. The police department phone line recorded the tip about burglary and suspicion van on the 24th. The other huge omission was sealing Lacis autopsy records.

The only reason they’d seal it is it showed Scott didn’t do it

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Also, maybe the cope didn't see any relationship between a stolen watch and Laci's death when there was a lot of evidence that SCOTT DID IT.

Scott told them Laci’s watch was missing. Laci’s mother told the cops that as well.
Cops just ignored because they believed Scott did it

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The spouse is the most dangerous when there is a history of previous DV. There was no history of DV with the Petersons. Laci loved Scott and would hate that everyone thought he killed her thanks to some loose tramp like Amber who didn’t even know who her kids father even was. That was the woman Scott wanted to leave Laci for? I don’t think so. Nancy Grace and the state had it all wrong.

The partner is the most dangerous person, period. Not just in DV cases.

Cars are a leading cause of death. So is alcohol.

Are we going to all stop driving cars or stop drinking alcohol?

You are comparing apples to oranges and your stupidity is starting to really piss me off. Google is your friend.

"The CDC analyzed the murders of women in 18 states from 2003 to 2014, finding a total of 10,018 deaths. Of those, 55 percent were intimate partner violence-related, meaning they occurred at the hands of a former or current partner or the partner’s family or friends. In 93 percent of those cases, the culprit was a current or former romantic partner. The report also bucks the strangers-in-dark-alleys narrative common to televised crime dramas: Strangers perpetrated just 16 percent of all female homicides, fewer than acquaintances and just slightly more than parents.
About a third of the time, the couple had argued right before the homicide took place, and about 12 percent of the deaths were associated with jealousy. The majority of the victims were under the age of 40, and 15 percent were pregnant."

Statistics also show prosecutors have a a larger fail rate with homicide cases than other cases. The majority (over 60%) of court exonerations are homicide cases.

Does this mean Scott is innocent?

This is how foolish using statistics is. Forensic DNA evidence tells us everything. Motive means nothing. Anybody can build a motive in court about killing. Opportunity is also dubious. Why would he use Christmas Eve, the worst possible day ever, to kill Laci? Family was expecting her and she was preparing for her family as guests the next day (mopping the kitchen floor, baking, grocery shopping).

He already had plenty of opportunities to sleep with Amber and keep it that way. There is also the fact that Scott was working on the morning of December 24th for a few hours. Where did he leave Laci’s body? Their home had no garage so how did he lift the body to the trunk in broad daylight? A neighbor saw him
Putting umbrellas in his truck that same morning so this wasn’t some deserted neighborhood. Everyone was home because it was Xmas Eve. Surely, Mackenzie, the golden retriever, would not have been allowed to roam the streets and draw attention to a crime scene at the house. The dog had a muddy collar and leash when the neighbor discovered it which means Laci probably was on a walk with the dog.

Many basic facts were overlooked by cops

You are not using facts. You are using guesses and assumptions. There is a reason the partner is always looked at first. Based on your logic no one should ever be convicted of murder unless it's caught on tape.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In the A&E doc, one of the things that pissed off the detectives is Scott giving one of the cops a coaster for his cup of water. He thought that was suspicious for a man who just lost his wife to do.

It’s ridiculous the stuff they came up with. They just didn’t like Scott. The entire family originally thought she was alive and maybe went into labor and was at a local hospital. Even Sharon Rocha, Lacis mom, criticized the cops and the reporters who implied foul play. The family thought Laci went into labor prematurely.

I think he's guilty, but if for some reason he didn't get a fair trial then he should get one. However, I agree with you that there are dozens of nonsensical tidbits that people cling to as a reason for his guilt.

He had one of the best legal defense teams. He got a fair trial, he just didn’t like the outcome.

He didn’t get a fair trial whatsoever. The judge was on the side of the prosecution and ignored all the defense witnesses who saw Laci arguing with men by a strange van. Many witnesses were adamant they saw Laci walking the dog that morning and she was wearing black pants not beige pants like the pants she was discovered dead in. Scott also told cops the night Laci went missing that she was wearing black pants. The missing person reports from December all said Laci was last seen wearing black maternity pants.

When she was found in the Bay in April, she was for some reason wearing beige pants which confused the officers but they made the assumption Scott probably killed her on the evening of the 23rd when Laci was wearing beige pants at her sister Amy’s hair salon. How would Scott remember what was on Martha Stewart that morning if he killed Laci the evening before? Was he just an avid Martha fan?

Laci’s sister Amy also Identified those beige pants from December 23rd at Laci’s house early on in the investigation in February before Laci’s body was found.

The pants Laci was found in were beige capris not long beige pants like the ones Amy said Laci wore. The capris track more with an April death and it implies Laci was kidnapped and gave birth.

It’s hard to believe she wore beige capris on a cold Christmas Eve walk with the dog. All the witnesses who said they saw a pregnant woman walking a golden retriever said she was wearing long black pants.

She was 5’1”. Her pants are short. They were just her pants from the 23rd.

Yes, there was probably a woman walking a dog with black pants on.

How did Scott correctly guess lemon meringue was made on the Martha Stewart show on the morning of the 24th? On their home computer, someone logged in at 8:45am and went to yahoo! shopping to look up a red scarf and sunflower umbrella stand. Scott did all this?

Helps establish an alibi, doesn't it?