Scott Peterson Netflix Documentary

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The search for Laci's body in the San Francisco Bay did not result in the bay being secured as a crime scene. Countless people were free to come and go from the bay at all hours of the day and night. Meanwhile, Scott's alibi and the fact that the bay was being searched was publicized almost daily. There was ample opportunity to place their bodies in the water or along the shoreline.

Juror Greg Beratlis tried to grasp the defense theory that Peterson was framed, but he couldn't believe that any one else would have gone to such trouble to hide her body. Why is this so unbelievable? If someone is evil enough to commit murder, wouldn't they be evil enough to go to the trouble of blaming someone else?

Isn’t that what Scott is doing? Killed his wife but blaming the burglars? The burglars who passed a polygraph he was too scared to take?

Yes, The same burglars who bragged to inmates they confronted Laci that day.

Those burglars have a criminal history a mile long and Scott has no history of crime.

Who are you trying to convince? Do you think you’re a lawyer talking to jurors? Are you that delusional?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the contention is that Laci was kidnapped by the burglars, held for weeks until she gave birth and then, she and Connor were killed and their bodies dumped in the bay?

There’s some criminal chick named Deanna Renfro (she even was Facebook friends with one of the burglars). She also knew the Medina family, the family that was robbed. The Medinas left for LA on the morning of Dec 24, and an hour later the burglars arrive to rob the house. In the house, a safe with over 50,000 in cash is robbed along with jewels. It’s not explained why there’s 50k in cash in that house, but when Scott’s defense wanted to test the safe for Laci’s fingerprints or hair, the Modesto police “destroyed the safe”. It was never found.

Deanna Renfro pawned Lacis watch on December 31, 2002. She knew the burglars, the homeowners, owned a van, had an extensive criminal history along with her burglar buddies, and the cops didn’t interrogate her for anything and the burglars didn’t give up her name either as the link who told them about the Medinas.

A police officer reported an unidentified woman swiftly ran into the police station some time after Dec 27th and threw the Medina jewelry on the counter and ran away.

And somehow all this supposed connection to the neighbors means again that they kidnapped a pregnant woman, held her for months, allowed her to give birth and then killed her and the baby separately. In the meantime they pawned the pregnant lady’s watch linking them to her as well. Brilliant theory.

How did the rope get tied in a bow over Connor? Was he born while Scott strangled her?

How did they get the watch? What happened to Lacis cell phone? You notice the cops don’t mention that’s missing right? They always wanted to pin it on Scott. She was taken. She wasn’t killed at home by Scott. She went for her walk and never returned

Again, enough with the questions. Where is the detailed, coherent explanation (that you said you already provided but won't give a page number) of what might have actually happened instead?

I don’t have to provide an alternative detailed theory. All that’s needed is to prove reasonable doubt. If there’s any reasonable doubt, you aren’t supposed to convict especially to death.

There’s lots of reasonable doubt in this case from the clothing Lacis body was in, twine around Connors neck, the burglary, the watch, the burglar’s safe, the burned van with a bloody mattress, the SF Bay not closed as a crime scene as part of an active investigation, alibi getting publicized, ignoring tips about strange vans and seeing a pregnant woman arguing with men. Modesto’s downtown area by the Airport district was and still is drug and crime ridden, and the cadaver dogs kept trailing that way in the days after Laci’s disappearance. She probably was in one of those strange vans and never got out. The Robbers and Deanna all lived in the Airport district.

We aren't a jury. We are people on a online forum. Reasonable doubt isn't enough to convince us. You need to tell us exactly what happened. Plus you said that you had already had done that which is a lie. So you clearly aren't doing too well here.

[Anonymous]

You could create doubt in any case that isn’t on video. There wasn’t enough doubt to find him innocent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the contention is that Laci was kidnapped by the burglars, held for weeks until she gave birth and then, she and Connor were killed and their bodies dumped in the bay?

There’s some criminal chick named Deanna Renfro (she even was Facebook friends with one of the burglars). She also knew the Medina family, the family that was robbed. The Medinas left for LA on the morning of Dec 24, and an hour later the burglars arrive to rob the house. In the house, a safe with over 50,000 in cash is robbed along with jewels. It’s not explained why there’s 50k in cash in that house, but when Scott’s defense wanted to test the safe for Laci’s fingerprints or hair, the Modesto police “destroyed the safe”. It was never found.

Deanna Renfro pawned Lacis watch on December 31, 2002. She knew the burglars, the homeowners, owned a van, had an extensive criminal history along with her burglar buddies, and the cops didn’t interrogate her for anything and the burglars didn’t give up her name either as the link who told them about the Medinas.

A police officer reported an unidentified woman swiftly ran into the police station some time after Dec 27th and threw the Medina jewelry on the counter and ran away.

And somehow all this supposed connection to the neighbors means again that they kidnapped a pregnant woman, held her for months, allowed her to give birth and then killed her and the baby separately. In the meantime they pawned the pregnant lady’s watch linking them to her as well. Brilliant theory.

How did the rope get tied in a bow over Connor? Was he born while Scott strangled her?

How did they get the watch? What happened to Lacis cell phone? You notice the cops don’t mention that’s missing right? They always wanted to pin it on Scott. She was taken. She wasn’t killed at home by Scott. She went for her walk and never returned

Again, enough with the questions. Where is the detailed, coherent explanation (that you said you already provided but won't give a page number) of what might have actually happened instead?

I don’t have to provide an alternative detailed theory. All that’s needed is to prove reasonable doubt. If there’s any reasonable doubt, you aren’t supposed to convict especially to death.

There’s lots of reasonable doubt in this case from the clothing Lacis body was in, twine around Connors neck, the burglary, the watch, the burglar’s safe, the burned van with a bloody mattress, the SF Bay not closed as a crime scene as part of an active investigation, alibi getting publicized, ignoring tips about strange vans and seeing a pregnant woman arguing with men. Modesto’s downtown area by the Airport district was and still is drug and crime ridden, and the cadaver dogs kept trailing that way in the days after Laci’s disappearance. She probably was in one of those strange vans and never got out. The Robbers and Deanna all lived in the Airport district.

We aren't a jury. We are people on a online forum. Reasonable doubt isn't enough to convince us. You need to tell us exactly what happened. Plus you said that you had already had done that which is a lie. So you clearly aren't doing too well here.

DP. Actually no. No one needs to convince anyone else here of what happened. Its just a chat board for fat Marylanders.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You could create doubt in any case that isn’t on video. There wasn’t enough doubt to find him innocent.

In that case, why try crime at all?

There was plenty of doubt about this guilt. The state prosecutor doesn’t even know how Laci died. They said everything from she drowned in the pool, she was smothered in her sleep, she was suffocated, strangled, knocked unconscious with the mop, poisoned by Scott’s fertilizer, thrown overboard alive.

They don’t know how she was dismembered in a bay full of sturgeon (no sharks or gators). They don’t even know when she died or the time of death (anywhere from the 23rd or the 24th even though Connor was bigger than this measurements from the OB/GYN appointment on Dec 23rd that Scott also attended).

They don’t know anything except Scott’s phone sex with Amber Frey.

[Anonymous]

Modesto was always a skeevy town. In the months prior to Laci’s disappearance, lots of car thefts were happening in the area and Scott and Laci’s mailbox was broken into several times for checks.

That’s why Scott had a gun in his glove box. It had nothing to do with wanting to kill Laci but perhaps protecting his home and family

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You could create doubt in any case that isn’t on video. There wasn’t enough doubt to find him innocent.

In that case, why try crime at all?

There was plenty of doubt about this guilt. The state prosecutor doesn’t even know how Laci died. They said everything from she drowned in the pool, she was smothered in her sleep, she was suffocated, strangled, knocked unconscious with the mop, poisoned by Scott’s fertilizer, thrown overboard alive.

They don’t know how she was dismembered in a bay full of sturgeon (no sharks or gators). They don’t even know when she died or the time of death (anywhere from the 23rd or the 24th even though Connor was bigger than this measurements from the OB/GYN appointment on Dec 23rd that Scott also attended).

They don’t know anything except Scott’s phone sex with Amber Frey.

They don’t need to answer any and every question. They put forth a theory, convinced a jury and the defense had their turn to challenge and poke holes in the theory and guess what? They failed to convince the jury. That’s how it works. It was more than reasonable to the jury and virtually everyone else that Scott committed this crime even if we don’t know if he did it with the candlestick, rope, or wrench in the billiard room or kitchen. The circumstantial evidence overwhelmingly points to Scott, and nobody else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Modesto was always a skeevy town. In the months prior to Laci’s disappearance, lots of car thefts were happening in the area and Scott and Laci’s mailbox was broken into several times for checks.

That’s why Scott had a gun in his glove box. It had nothing to do with wanting to kill Laci but perhaps protecting his home and family

Excuse me home intruders, let me run to my car and get my gun! Be right back!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Modesto was always a skeevy town. In the months prior to Laci’s disappearance, lots of car thefts were happening in the area and Scott and Laci’s mailbox was broken into several times for checks.

That’s why Scott had a gun in his glove box. It had nothing to do with wanting to kill Laci but perhaps protecting his home and family

Excuse me home intruders, let me run to my car and get my gun! Be right back!

He worked nights and needed it in his glovebox because it was mainly car theft going on.

I guess you think it wouldve been better
If he left it on the nightstand before cops arrived

[Anonymous]

That town has many problems and still does. It’s not crazy that a group of robbers (the woman who was hypnotized by the cops claims she saw 5 men not 2). It seems to mea
Heavy 200 lb safe and other items would need 5 men to carry it not just those 2 middle aged guys from earlier. Nobody knows why the Medinas didn’t seem to be in a hurry to get their safe back neither. They didn’t ask the cops for the safe or the money which is unusual

[Anonymous]

Why would cops go out of their way to hire a hypnotist specialist to hypnotize an eyewitness? It’s obvious the cops did that because she argued with them that it wasn’t Dec 27th but Dec 24th when the home invasion happened. The defense couldn’t use her as an credible eyewitness because of the hypnosis

[Anonymous]

Scattershot defense attorney wannabe is back convincing no one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Modesto was always a skeevy town. In the months prior to Laci’s disappearance, lots of car thefts were happening in the area and Scott and Laci’s mailbox was broken into several times for checks.

That’s why Scott had a gun in his glove box. It had nothing to do with wanting to kill Laci but perhaps protecting his home and family

Excuse me home intruders, let me run to my car and get my gun! Be right back!

He worked nights and needed it in his glovebox because it was mainly car theft going on.

I guess you think it wouldve been better
If he left it on the nightstand before cops arrived

Oh i thought you said it was to protect his family. Good idea to leave it in the car for the car thieves. They might have needed it more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Modesto was always a skeevy town. In the months prior to Laci’s disappearance, lots of car thefts were happening in the area and Scott and Laci’s mailbox was broken into several times for checks.

That’s why Scott had a gun in his glove box. It had nothing to do with wanting to kill Laci but perhaps protecting his home and family

Excuse me home intruders, let me run to my car and get my gun! Be right back!

He worked nights and needed it in his glovebox because it was mainly car theft going on.

I guess you think it wouldve been better
If he left it on the nightstand before cops arrived

He was a fertilizer salesman. Wtf are you blabbing on about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Scattershot defense attorney wannabe is back convincing no one.

+1 like low level criminals are going to murder a full-term pregnant woman. Oh and leave no forensic evidence behind despite it being in heat of moment and unplanned. It’s such a dumb argument.