Reply to Scott Peterson Netflix Documentary

Forum Index » Entertainment and Pop Culture

Reply to "Scott Peterson Netflix Documentary "

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]
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.[/quote]

The partner is the most dangerous person, period. Not just in DV cases. [/quote]

[b]Cars are a leading cause of death. So is alcohol. [/b]
[b]
Are we going to all stop driving cars or stop drinking alcohol?[/b]
 [/quote]

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

[i]"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. [b]In 93 percent of those cases, the culprit was a current or former romantic partner.[/b] 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."[/i][/quote]

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[/quote]

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. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics