Scott Peterson Netflix Documentary
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
Why did Scott turn down the polygraph when the burglars took one? |
Anonymous
Oh, boo hoo. The only one playing a game was Scott. |
Anonymous
Because his daddy told him not to. Sounds like the Petersons are as scummy and gross as their murdering son. |
Anonymous
Except when he told Amber his wife was dead, dyed his hair, and fled toward Mexico with a large amount of cash. Other than that there was zero evidence. Okay. |
Anonymous
He said his wife was gone and this was the first Christmas without her on December 8th. Gone isn’t dead. Gone is very vague. It could mean separated, divorced, widowed, estranged. He didn’t specify and Amber didn’t need specifications. She slept with him afterward and took him to her Christmas party. She didn’t pry further. He didn’t want to say divorced because he didn’t plan on leaving Laci. The only reason he said anything at all is because Amber’s best friend found out he was married and told Scott he had till Monday to tell Amber directly. He met Amber on November 20, 2002. He wasn’t going to spend Christmas with Amber and he didn’t go see Amber on the fishing trip on the 24th. Amber meant nothing to him and he planned to stay with Laci |
Anonymous
You believe the burglars weren’t working with cops? They got a slap on the wrist for “good behavior” and barely did any time for the home invasion. The burglarly date was changed by police to December 26th. They wanted to make Scott the perp so badly. Sharon Rocha originally believed the burglars killed Laci. The cops hated Scott’s demeanor. That’s not a reason to make someone go to jail. That’s bad police work. How did someone with connections to the burglars pawn Laci’s watch? |
Anonymous
A game where he tells officers exactly where he went fishing that afternoon? I thought Scott killed Laci and dumped her body there with fake anchors made of cement? Why would he tell cops exactly where he buried a body? A body that cops couldn’t find for 5 months at the marina |
Anonymous
|
The prosecution did not put Deanna Renfro, the woman who sold the watch to the pawn shop, on as a witness because MPD ignored her connection to Laci’s disappearance. If they had investigated her thoroughly, they would have found a link between her family and that of Steven Todd, the burglar, and her family and the Medinas. Deanna Renfro was not investigated because Scott was the one and only focus of this investigation within 24 hours of Laci’s disappearance. MPD knew this watch was missing early in the investigation because Scott gave this information to Chris Boyer during the search warrant December 26-27; and Craig Grogan definitely learned about it on December 30, 2002, during his taped phone conversation with Scott. However, the only information about this very significant piece of evidence that was given to the defense in discovery was the pawn slip—no reports, no follow-up information.
Distaso makes it appear that the pawn shop people who testified were the ones involved in the transaction with Deanna Renfro and the Croton watch. They were not. They were involved in a totally separate transaction with Laci and Scott involving other jewelry that Laci had inherited from her grandmother. Scott and Laci tried to sell the Croton watch on e-bay, but they were not successful. Distaso suggests that he’s sure they sold the watch when there is no evidence to support such a claim. Laci inherited 2 gold watches from her grandmother. The one that she had repaired and wore to the Christmas party was recovered at the Peterson house during the search of December 26-27. Laci was not wearing that watch on the day she disappeared. She was wearing the Croton watch which was never recovered. |
Anonymous
|
The prosecution’s only piece of physical evidence is a single hair which somehow became two hairs when Detective Brocchini and Detective Hendee opened the evidence envelope in February 2003. The chain of custody of this hair is very suspicious as is the mitochondrial DNA testing of the hair sample. It is also suspicious that Detective Brocchini kept Laci’s blue-black hairbrush in his desk drawer for some time after it was collected during the search warrant of December 26-27.
Distaso falsely states that the hair was wrapped around the pliers even though Detective Hendee who collected the hair says definitely that the hair did not wrap around the pliers. |
Anonymous
I don't see how you can reasonable conclude this. On any level whatsoever. |
Anonymous
|
Though, in his own words, he was there "to eliminate him as a suspect," Brocchini wasn't interested in pursuing the evidence that pointed away from Scott Peterson. Laci was sighted by several people in her neighborhood that morning with her dog, McKenzie. All of these witnesses were deemed not credible, despite the fact that these sightings occurred at approximately the same locations along one of Laci's known walking routes and within 1 1/2 hours of one another. Some of these witnesses were interviewed over the telephone with no follow-up to confirm or eliminate the possibility that they had seen Laci Peterson. Some reports were never investigated at all.
Some background on Allen Brocchini, one of two lead detectives assigned to investigate the Laci Peterson disappearance, gives an insight into the questionable tactics this officer is willing to use to pursue his goal. He came to Modesto in 1993 after eight years with the Alameda County Sheriff's Department. In November of 2000, he was assigned to the Crimes Against Persons Unit. He was with the Unit when he received the call to return to Modesto on Christmas Eve, 2002, to investigate the apparent disappearance of 7 1/2 months pregnant Laci Peterson. His resume would include the following cases where it appears he could be called the 'bad' cop in a good cop-bad cop partnership. 1. In the case of Somnguen Amphavannasouk, a confession was obtained when Brocchini lied to Mr. Amphavannasouk and told him he would go back to school if he confessed to the burglary and assault they were charging him with. 2. Veronica Alvarez, innocent of any crime, was threatened by Brocchini with the confiscation of her Green Card and deportation back to Mexico. Her son had been acquitted in a case where Brocchini had testified for the prosecution. 3. Michelle Owens was pushed, threatened and pursued into the hallway of a courthouse by Brocchini, after the judge in the case had ordered him to stay away from her. Michelle was a witness in the case. 4. Wendell Johnson was released, over the objections of a federal prosecutor, when Brocchini made a deal with him to produce a video tape needed in another investigation. Johnson was released and promptly disappeared,along with the tape. 5. And in the case of Darnell Green, Detective Brocchini's testimony resulted in a mistrial when the judge in the case ruled that the Detective made comments on the witness stand that might have prejudiced the jury. The defense in the Darnell Green case claimed that Brocchini made the comments blatantly and deliberately because he felt that the prosecution was losing. |
Anonymous
Why didn’t the defense call her as a witness? |
Anonymous
How? Cops have the ability to determine our innocence and guilt on a dime and plant evidence in or against our favor. The cops happened to like the burglars more than they liked Scott so Scott went to jail and they didn’t |
Anonymous
Only piece of evidence? Ok. That’s not how any of this works. |
Anonymous
Or maybe the cops, like everyone reasonable realized that the lying con man ready to flee to Mexico clearly did it. It wasn’t some satanic cult, or random burglars, it was the husband like it almost always is. Scott was just the type and all his behavior points toward his guilt. |