Scott Peterson Netflix Documentary

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Why didn’t the defense call her as a witness?

The defense couldnt. The judge dismissed any witnesses for the defense like the fisherman at the marina or the people who spotted Laci or the home invasion/suspicious van. The lady who called 911 about the home invasion says she definitely called on Christmas Eve.

The entire trial was unfair. California “didn’t want another OJ” after the country wanting a conviction so they wanted to deliver a great verdict. It also looks bad for police depts and crime rates if some random perps are kidnapping and killing pregnant women. It’s better to say it’s a domestic incident.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m a woman and I don’t think he did it.

I don't see how you can reasonable conclude this. On any level whatsoever.

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

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.

Behavior is not an arbiter of guilt. What does acting guilty even mean? He didn’t know he was supposed to grieve on the 24th when he met cops. He thought Laci was still alive. They all did. Laci’s family thought she was alive too. He asked the cops if they should search hospitals because the Peterson and Rocha families assumed she went into labor prematurely.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m a woman and I don’t think he did it.

I don't see how you can reasonable conclude this. On any level whatsoever.

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

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.

Behavior is not an arbiter of guilt. What does acting guilty even mean? He didn’t know he was supposed to grieve on the 24th when he met cops. He thought Laci was still alive. They all did. Laci’s family thought she was alive too. He asked the cops if they should search hospitals because the Peterson and Rocha families assumed she went into labor prematurely.

At the end of the day the jury didn’t believe the defense. They put up a shoddy case, Scott sunk himself with his bizarre behavior and now he pays the piper. Oh well.

[Anonymous]

On December 26, 2002, Cindee Valentin, volunteer lieutenant with the Contra
Costa County Sheriff's Department was called in with her trailing dog, Merlin. In her testimony, trainer Valentin told of her work with this purebred bloodhound who had demonstrated the ability to run trails up to 14 days old. This skill certified the dog with the California Rescue Dog Association.

Valentin was the first to scent a trailing dog in the Laci Peterson disappearance. She used Laci's sunglasses which she had collected and placed in an evidence bag. Merlin took the scent directly from the sunglasses, and per Valentin's testimony, followed the freshest scent. Rather than heading into the park or northwest towards Scott's warehouse, Merlin consistently exhibited the desire to trail south and west. Even when Brocchini had the dog brought to the warehouse, he headed out of the lot, south, and west. On January 4, Detective Brocchini would stop the trailing team on the ramp from Maze Boulevard to US 580, disregarding the fact that Merlin was insistent and pulling hard on the leash. In her testimony, Cindee Valentin revealed that she knew on December 26 the Detective was focusing on Scott.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m a woman and I don’t think he did it.

I don't see how you can reasonable conclude this. On any level whatsoever.

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

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.

Behavior is not an arbiter of guilt. What does acting guilty even mean? He didn’t know he was supposed to grieve on the 24th when he met cops. He thought Laci was still alive. They all did. Laci’s family thought she was alive too. He asked the cops if they should search hospitals because the Peterson and Rocha families assumed she went into labor prematurely.

It is very well known that cops observe the behavior of close family members when a disappearance occurs. And cops are not stupid. They hear every excuse in the book Watch "48 Hours" and you can see interrogations where husbands seem unsurprised that their wife is missing or dead. Acting unsurprised or calm is one red flag. Another red flag is the accused coming up with crazy theories about how the wife hurt herself or went missing on her own.

The cops have heard it all and they are used to lies. And again, when a woman goes missing or dies, her intimate partner is the top suspect.

[Anonymous]

Upon his arrival at the Peterson home, Detective Brocchini met with Jon Evers and Byron Duerfeldt, first responding Officers to the missing persons call. Officer Spurlock was also there, and may have been the source of Brocchini's initial suspicion of Scott. As the officer in charge, Evers had just learned that, when questioned by Spurlock on what he'd been fishing for in the Bay, Scott couldn't say what he had been fishing for. This statement, repeated in whispers to Brocchini even before he'd met Scott, was the start of the spin and twist of Scott's words and actions to fit Brocchini's coming theory that Peterson was guilty of murder. Scott's qualifying statement that his real intention was 'just to get the boat in the water' was given no credence, although it made sense.

What were the other things found that pointed to guilt in Brocchini's mind? The list isn't long and can be shown to prove that Scott told the truth that first night.

1.He didn't know what he was fishing for or what kind of bait he was using.
2.He said he went fishing instead of golfing because it was too cold to golf.
3.There were two mops in a bucket on the porch.
4.Laci's purse was in the closet of the couple's bedroom.
5.Two duffel bags were disturbed in the spare bedroom.
6.Dirty cleaning rags were piled on top of the washer.
7.A disarrayed throw rug lay against the door.


This is what they found the first night, and from these observations, a case for first degree murder was instigated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:On December 26, 2002, Cindee Valentin, volunteer lieutenant with the Contra
Costa County Sheriff's Department was called in with her trailing dog, Merlin. In her testimony, trainer Valentin told of her work with this purebred bloodhound who had demonstrated the ability to run trails up to 14 days old. This skill certified the dog with the California Rescue Dog Association.

Valentin was the first to scent a trailing dog in the Laci Peterson disappearance. She used Laci's sunglasses which she had collected and placed in an evidence bag. Merlin took the scent directly from the sunglasses, and per Valentin's testimony, followed the freshest scent. Rather than heading into the park or northwest towards Scott's warehouse, Merlin consistently exhibited the desire to trail south and west. Even when Brocchini had the dog brought to the warehouse, he headed out of the lot, south, and west. On January 4, Detective Brocchini would stop the trailing team on the ramp from Maze Boulevard to US 580, disregarding the fact that Merlin was insistent and pulling hard on the leash. In her testimony, Cindee Valentin revealed that she knew on December 26 the Detective was focusing on Scott.

More copy and pasting from the “Save Scott Peterson” efforts. Yawn, nobody cares enough to read this. His family should move give it up.

[Anonymous]

The duffel bags probably have something to do with the fact she was 8 months pregnant. The boat was purchased December 8th and he didn’t use until December 24th. Why would he want to wait till May to use it in the water? If there are any faults, he wants to test drive it early so he can still track down the seller.

Laci was walking the dog so why would she need to bring her purse? If Scott mopped the floor to hide evidence which cops assumed, why would he leave the mops in the bucket on the front porch and dirty rags around the washer?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Only piece of evidence? Ok. That’s not how any of this works.

The only piece of physical evidence was Laci’s hair on the pliers found in the fishing boat.

The prosecution ignored the witness who said Laci was at Scott’s job/warehouse on December 20th so presumably she saw the new boat. Scott purchased the boat from a joint account he shared with Laci. Detective Brocchini admitted he omitted that witness’ statement on his police report.

Brocchini also kept Laci’s hair brush collected as evidence in his desk drawer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m a woman and I don’t think he did it.

I don't see how you can reasonable conclude this. On any level whatsoever.

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

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.

The fleeing to Mexico thing happened later on long after he was already a suspect. He was a suspect on the night of because the house had cleaning supplies out and he went fishing but didn’t know much about fishing (well that was why he researched fishing online). If he was a novice at it, how would he dump a body overboard in broad daylight in a tiny fishing boat?

Why did he call Lacis mom to ask where Laci was? Laci was planning to spend Christmas Eve and Christmas with her parents. He chose that day to kill her? If this was premeditated, he could’ve killed her in January and escaped to Mexico.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m a woman and I don’t think he did it.

I don't see how you can reasonable conclude this. On any level whatsoever.

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

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.

The fleeing to Mexico thing happened later on long after he was already a suspect. He was a suspect on the night of because the house had cleaning supplies out and he went fishing but didn’t know much about fishing (well that was why he researched fishing online). If he was a novice at it, how would he dump a body overboard in broad daylight in a tiny fishing boat?

Why did he call Lacis mom to ask where Laci was? Laci was planning to spend Christmas Eve and Christmas with her parents. He chose that day to kill her? If this was premeditated, he could’ve killed her in January and escaped to Mexico.

Ask Scott. He had already planned this out which is why he told Amber it was going to be his first holiday without his wife. The fleeing to Mexico thing happened when the bodies turned up and Scott realized the jig was up. It was a desperate move by a desperate man. He was on the run.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Only piece of evidence? Ok. That’s not how any of this works.

The only piece of physical evidence was Laci’s hair on the pliers found in the fishing boat.

The prosecution ignored the witness who said Laci was at Scott’s job/warehouse on December 20th so presumably she saw the new boat. Scott purchased the boat from a joint account he shared with Laci. Detective Brocchini admitted he omitted that witness’ statement on his police report.

Brocchini also kept Laci’s hair brush collected as evidence in his desk drawer.

Presumably is not very convincing, sorry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Only piece of evidence? Ok. That’s not how any of this works.

The only piece of physical evidence was Laci’s hair on the pliers found in the fishing boat.

The prosecution ignored the witness who said Laci was at Scott’s job/warehouse on December 20th so presumably she saw the new boat. Scott purchased the boat from a joint account he shared with Laci. Detective Brocchini admitted he omitted that witness’ statement on his police report.

Brocchini also kept Laci’s hair brush collected as evidence in his desk drawer.

Because it was already in the report of the officer who took the statement.

[Anonymous]

I'm not sure why everyone is grasping at the Martha Stewart segment proving him innocent.

Did you know - at the end of the previous show, they have a "what's on the next show!" preview. He could have literally watched the show the day before, and knew the next one was going to be about cookies and meringue. He could have watched the intro to the show, where Martha says what she will be making on that day. He could have even looked it up after to see what she made. This proves literally nothing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m a woman and I don’t think he did it.

I don't see how you can reasonable conclude this. On any level whatsoever.

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

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.

Behavior is not an arbiter of guilt. What does acting guilty even mean? He didn’t know he was supposed to grieve on the 24th when he met cops. He thought Laci was still alive. They all did. Laci’s family thought she was alive too. He asked the cops if they should search hospitals because the Peterson and Rocha families assumed she went into labor prematurely.

Yes, it most certainly is.