Scott Peterson Netflix Documentary

[Anonymous]

The guy is clearly guilty. I’m shocked that anyone with a functioning brain could think otherwise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The guy is clearly guilty. I’m shocked that anyone with a functioning brain could think otherwise.

No forensic DNA tied him to the death. It’s all circumstantial evidence like what he told his girlfriend about the relationship being over (most cheaters say that ) and going fishing.

That doesn’t mean he killed his wife.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m honestly gobsmacked that anyone who followed this case thinks he’s innocent

There was a home invasion going on across the street. Laci was a victim of wrong place wrong time and so was Scott. Scott telling his mistress he’ll soon leave his wife and she will be gone soon doesn’t mean he killed her. It means he’s an Ahole and a cheater which lots of guys are

The two men who committed the home burglary across the street from Scott and Laci’s house really must have been high on drugs.

Considering the amount of police presence and media camped out on that particular street 24/7 they really took a huge chance getting possibly caught.

I can see how the robbery can raise some doubt - I mean if they saw Laci and assumed she would be a witness against them…..this is assuming they committed the burglary prior to Scott reporting her missing of course.

The robbery happened before she went missing/The police hubbub. It happened early morning around the time Laci took her walk with the dog.

The dog would’ve barked incessantly at the house if Scott strangled her there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I find him guilty primarily based on two things:

• He told his GF, Amber Frey that his wife was “lost” on Dec. 9th so it is pretty clear to me that he was already planning Laci’s demise ahead of time.

Also:

• It cannot be a mere coincidence that Laci and Conner’s bodies were found 90 min. away so close to where Scott claimed to have gone fishing the day Laci went missing.

I mean, c’mon.
The mere fact that the location was 1.5 hrs. away AND they were found……or rather washed up……so close to where Scott went fishing 🎣 is just too obvious.

Most married men that cheat are liars. If you lie, you can cheat. If you cheat, you have to lie.

Saying his wife was “lost” or “gone” or “its over” was just a way to keep Amber interested and happy. I am sure Bill told Monica things were long over between Him and Hillary. That’s just what men say when they want to get in a young woman’s pants.

He was a piece of shit but there’s no evidence he was actually planning on leaving his eight month pregnant wife and their son.

Scott was visibly pained and asked to not see the pictures of his dead son found in the SF Bay.

As for dying his hair and trying to run, he was doing that because he was freaked out by the paparazzi and police presence and neighbors threatening him. You would want to change your appearance too.

Nancy Grace is a pox on this country

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The guy is clearly guilty. I’m shocked that anyone with a functioning brain could think otherwise.

No forensic DNA tied him to the death. It’s all circumstantial evidence like what he told his girlfriend about the relationship being over (most cheaters say that ) and going fishing.

That doesn’t mean he killed his wife.

They found her hair in a pair of pliers on his boat that he used to dump her body.

Is DNA evidence the only way to prove a murder?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The guy is clearly guilty. I’m shocked that anyone with a functioning brain could think otherwise.

No forensic DNA tied him to the death. It’s all circumstantial evidence like what he told his girlfriend about the relationship being over (most cheaters say that ) and going fishing.

That doesn’t mean he killed his wife.

They found her hair in a pair of pliers on his boat that he used to dump her body.

Is DNA evidence the only way to prove a murder?

It is to the braindead morons who have watched too much CSI and are under the impression that an abundance of circumstantial evidence can never add up to… evidence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The guy is clearly guilty. I’m shocked that anyone with a functioning brain could think otherwise.

No forensic DNA tied him to the death. It’s all circumstantial evidence like what he told his girlfriend about the relationship being over (most cheaters say that ) and going fishing.

That doesn’t mean he killed his wife.

They found her hair in a pair of pliers on his boat that he used to dump her body.

Is DNA evidence the only way to prove a murder?

Hair is found anywhere. That’s not proof of murder. Laci had thick head of long curly hair. I’m sure her hair follicles shed everywhere.



Where is the blood evidence? Laci was practically decapitated. Her body was dismembered. Where were the scratches and bruises on his arm from Laci fighting back during the strangulation? Where’s the evidence from Laci’s mop that he used in the house to clean up? What about the duct tape on her mouth? No evidence there either. No blood on the boat.

Do you really think he’d do all that especially on Christmas Eve when everyone was at home and had family over? He just dismembered a body or carried it out whole into his car on Christmas morning and went fishing to dump the body? Dog apparently doesn’t say a thing during all this dismemberment. He calls Lacis family to ask where she is in the afternoon. Why would he want to alarm them that she’s missing and not home? That gives him away if he’s the killer right?

[Anonymous]

Bark a thing*

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The guy is clearly guilty. I’m shocked that anyone with a functioning brain could think otherwise.

No forensic DNA tied him to the death. It’s all circumstantial evidence like what he told his girlfriend about the relationship being over (most cheaters say that ) and going fishing.

That doesn’t mean he killed his wife.

They found her hair in a pair of pliers on his boat that he used to dump her body.

Is DNA evidence the only way to prove a murder?

It is to the braindead morons who have watched too much CSI and are under the impression that an abundance of circumstantial evidence can never add up to… evidence.

Circumstantial evidence is often wrong and due to grand assumptions and narrative creating.

Forensic evidence is always the biggest and most accurate way to solve a crime and yet in most crime cases in the US they’re rarely used because dna testing is new and it’s very expensive for police depts. Looking at phone and email records are easier. Due to his affair, Scott’s own words were able to be used to build a motive and a case.

There isn’t any physical evidence in this case linking Scott to the crime. It’s all circumstantial speculation that he’s guilty because he cheated on his wife, went fishing, and ordered porn 3 days after she was missing.

That doesn’t mean he killed her. A cheater ordering porn is not a surprise.

He received the death penalty and life in jail without parole for a crime that had nothing about 100% circumstantial “evidence”. That’s insane

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The guy is clearly guilty. I’m shocked that anyone with a functioning brain could think otherwise.

No forensic DNA tied him to the death. It’s all circumstantial evidence like what he told his girlfriend about the relationship being over (most cheaters say that ) and going fishing.

That doesn’t mean he killed his wife.

They found her hair in a pair of pliers on his boat that he used to dump her body.

Is DNA evidence the only way to prove a murder?

Hair is found anywhere. That’s not proof of murder. Laci had thick head of long curly hair. I’m sure her hair follicles shed everywhere.



Where is the blood evidence? Laci was practically decapitated. Her body was dismembered. Where were the scratches and bruises on his arm from Laci fighting back during the strangulation? Where’s the evidence from Laci’s mop that he used in the house to clean up? What about the duct tape on her mouth? No evidence there either. No blood on the boat.

Do you really think he’d do all that especially on Christmas Eve when everyone was at home and had family over? He just dismembered a body or carried it out whole into his car on Christmas morning and went fishing to dump the body? Dog apparently doesn’t say a thing during all this dismemberment. He calls Lacis family to ask where she is in the afternoon. Why would he want to alarm them that she’s missing and not home? That gives him away if he’s the killer right?

Hadn’t he bleached the entire kitchen right after she disappeared? If I remember correctly…. I haven’t watched any recent docs but followed the case for a while.

[Anonymous]

Is this a new documentary or the one that was released years ago when it happened?

[Anonymous]

The Hulu one is better and if you really watch it you’ll come away asking questions about what you thought you knew. This one is biased towards her family.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The guy is clearly guilty. I’m shocked that anyone with a functioning brain could think otherwise.

There are some really dumb people out there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The guy is clearly guilty. I’m shocked that anyone with a functioning brain could think otherwise.

No forensic DNA tied him to the death. It’s all circumstantial evidence like what he told his girlfriend about the relationship being over (most cheaters say that ) and going fishing.

That doesn’t mean he killed his wife.

They found her hair in a pair of pliers on his boat that he used to dump her body.

Is DNA evidence the only way to prove a murder?

Hair is found anywhere. That’s not proof of murder. Laci had thick head of long curly hair. I’m sure her hair follicles shed everywhere.



Where is the blood evidence? Laci was practically decapitated. Her body was dismembered. Where were the scratches and bruises on his arm from Laci fighting back during the strangulation? Where’s the evidence from Laci’s mop that he used in the house to clean up? What about the duct tape on her mouth? No evidence there either. No blood on the boat.

Do you really think he’d do all that especially on Christmas Eve when everyone was at home and had family over? He just dismembered a body or carried it out whole into his car on Christmas morning and went fishing to dump the body? Dog apparently doesn’t say a thing during all this dismemberment. He calls Lacis family to ask where she is in the afternoon. Why would he want to alarm them that she’s missing and not home? That gives him away if he’s the killer right?

Hadn’t he bleached the entire kitchen right after she disappeared? If I remember correctly…. I haven’t watched any recent docs but followed the case for a while.

No. She was the one cleaning the kitchen with a mop. If the crime was strangulation, I can see how it could be possible Scott did it but it’s the dismemberment that is the issue here.

Bleach or the mop would be bloodstained and soaked with dna or blood and First off, that’s something only a true psychopath can do and he’d need a saw or something to do that. His boat and car was clean and the mop that Laci used was there and not blood soaked.


To me, it’s possible he was framed by police and media all because he was a cheater and not much else. Laci was last seen walking alone outside in the neighborhood. He should’ve walked with her.

That was his biggest mistake

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The guy is clearly guilty. I’m shocked that anyone with a functioning brain could think otherwise.

No forensic DNA tied him to the death. It’s all circumstantial evidence like what he told his girlfriend about the relationship being over (most cheaters say that ) and going fishing.

That doesn’t mean he killed his wife.

They found her hair in a pair of pliers on his boat that he used to dump her body.

Is DNA evidence the only way to prove a murder?

Hair is found anywhere. That’s not proof of murder. Laci had thick head of long curly hair. I’m sure her hair follicles shed everywhere.



Where is the blood evidence? Laci was practically decapitated. Her body was dismembered. Where were the scratches and bruises on his arm from Laci fighting back during the strangulation? Where’s the evidence from Laci’s mop that he used in the house to clean up? What about the duct tape on her mouth? No evidence there either. No blood on the boat.

Do you really think he’d do all that especially on Christmas Eve when everyone was at home and had family over? He just dismembered a body or carried it out whole into his car on Christmas morning and went fishing to dump the body? Dog apparently doesn’t say a thing during all this dismemberment. He calls Lacis family to ask where she is in the afternoon. Why would he want to alarm them that she’s missing and not home? That gives him away if he’s the killer right?

All of the damage to Laci's body was inflicted in the water. It was not dismembered prior. The fetus was expelled in the water from the pressure of gas buildup. The most likely scenario is in fact that she was strangled from behind as she was mopping. She was heavily pregnant and he was far stronger. Was his body even checked for scratches? Anyway, all it took was gloves and long sleeves to avoid those too. There is simply no credible alternative to his guilt, including the low-level robbery that doesn't fit the timeline. Telling his mistress ahead of time that he "lost" his wife is unbelievably damning, as is the "fishing." And he's now lying about the affair too, claiming it was just sex and due to his low self-esteem. He promised Amber a future and that he'd be happy with her kid. He is a stone cold liar and killer.