Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I want to hear the new, compelling evidence that made the LA Innocence Project take this case.

It isn't new evidence. Burglary in neighborhood earlier that month, burned out van, blood on mattress, possible sightings a little later than originally thought. Other than DNA testing of the blood, all already considered and discarded in light of the combined weight of Scott's motive, opportunity, lack of emotion throughout the entire process, and coincidental marina excursion that day.

Anonymous wrote:I want to hear the new, compelling evidence that made the LA Innocence Project take this case.

Anonymous wrote:How common is it to get sentenced to death with no evidence that you committed a crime? We all assumed guilt because he was having an affair and the body turned up in the marina. But that’s all they had on him. Not one other modicum of evidence. I don’t know what happened to her but it doesn’t seem like the prosecutors did either and sent him to death row with a lot of shady practices.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know that Scott Peterson did a lot of questionable things during his wife’s Laci’s disappearance as well as after her + Conner’s death.

First he claimed he played golf, then he said he actually went fishing.
He bought a new boat and Laci & Conner’s dead bodies were discovered in the area where he had been fishing.

It was also strange how he tried to sell his house as well as Laci’s vehicle shortly afterward.
And of course, having an affair while your wife is due to have your first baby is not a good look at all.

However, these are ALL circumstantial things.
Sure Scott is a lying, cheating rat of a husband.

But to convict him beyond a reasonable doubt would be actual evidence presented linking him directly to the crime.
Not simply basing his conviction on his nefarious behavior.

I’ve sat on several juries (DC resident, not a lawyer; they love me) and have been reminded several times that circumstantial evidence IS actual evidence. It isn’t a lesser kind of evidence; it just involves more dot-connection. Hardly any crimes are solved based on direct evidence, eg eye witness testimony or video of the crime.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know that Scott Peterson did a lot of questionable things during his wife’s Laci’s disappearance as well as after her + Conner’s death.

First he claimed he played golf, then he said he actually went fishing.
He bought a new boat and Laci & Conner’s dead bodies were discovered in the area where he had been fishing.

It was also strange how he tried to sell his house as well as Laci’s vehicle shortly afterward.
And of course, having an affair while your wife is due to have your first baby is not a good look at all.

However, these are ALL circumstantial things.
Sure Scott is a lying, cheating rat of a husband.

But to convict him beyond a reasonable doubt would be actual evidence presented linking him directly to the crime.
Not simply basing his conviction on his nefarious behavior.

He and Laci could have been in a bad stage in their marriage. Perhaps they were staying together temporarily because she was expecting. This could explain his affair and his seemingly blasé attitude after she disappeared.
And while his actions made him appear suspect to some people, they do not necessarily point to him as a cold blooded murderer.

Playing Devil’s Advocate here, while I feel Scott likely did kill his wife, I don’t know as a juror on his case if the evidence was strong enough to put him behind bars.

Why on earth would any killer go thru the trouble of abducting a heavily pregnant woman and taking her out to sea to dispose of her body? A random killer would’ve left her in the house

The answer to this is simple:

If Laci was a witness + saw something that could possibly indict others in a criminal matter then the criminals involved would have zero issues on murdering her, then dumping her body into a bag of water.

Especially if they were high on drugs. 🤯

Again, petty burglary does not equal double murder. How many people high on drugs are able to carry out the perfect untraceable double murder in broad daylight with no witnesses and no evidence.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know that Scott Peterson did a lot of questionable things during his wife’s Laci’s disappearance as well as after her + Conner’s death.

First he claimed he played golf, then he said he actually went fishing.
He bought a new boat and Laci & Conner’s dead bodies were discovered in the area where he had been fishing.

It was also strange how he tried to sell his house as well as Laci’s vehicle shortly afterward.
And of course, having an affair while your wife is due to have your first baby is not a good look at all.

However, these are ALL circumstantial things.
Sure Scott is a lying, cheating rat of a husband.

But to convict him beyond a reasonable doubt would be actual evidence presented linking him directly to the crime.
Not simply basing his conviction on his nefarious behavior.

He and Laci could have been in a bad stage in their marriage. Perhaps they were staying together temporarily because she was expecting. This could explain his affair and his seemingly blasé attitude after she disappeared.
And while his actions made him appear suspect to some people, they do not necessarily point to him as a cold blooded murderer.

Playing Devil’s Advocate here, while I feel Scott likely did kill his wife, I don’t know as a juror on his case if the evidence was strong enough to put him behind bars.

Why on earth would any killer go thru the trouble of abducting a heavily pregnant woman and taking her out to sea to dispose of her body? A random killer would’ve left her in the house

The answer to this is simple:

If Laci was a witness + saw something that could possibly indict others in a criminal matter then the criminals involved would have zero issues on murdering her, then dumping her body into a bag of water.

Especially if they were high on drugs. 🤯

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know that Scott Peterson did a lot of questionable things during his wife’s Laci’s disappearance as well as after her + Conner’s death.

First he claimed he played golf, then he said he actually went fishing.
He bought a new boat and Laci & Conner’s dead bodies were discovered in the area where he had been fishing.

It was also strange how he tried to sell his house as well as Laci’s vehicle shortly afterward.
And of course, having an affair while your wife is due to have your first baby is not a good look at all.

However, these are ALL circumstantial things.
Sure Scott is a lying, cheating rat of a husband.

But to convict him beyond a reasonable doubt would be actual evidence presented linking him directly to the crime.
Not simply basing his conviction on his nefarious behavior.

He and Laci could have been in a bad stage in their marriage. Perhaps they were staying together temporarily because she was expecting. This could explain his affair and his seemingly blasé attitude after she disappeared.
And while his actions made him appear suspect to some people, they do not necessarily point to him as a cold blooded murderer.

Playing Devil’s Advocate here, while I feel Scott likely did kill his wife, I don’t know as a juror on his case if the evidence was strong enough to put him behind bars.

Why on earth would any killer go thru the trouble of abducting a heavily pregnant woman and taking her out to sea to dispose of her body? A random killer would’ve left her in the house

The answer to this is simple:

If Laci was a witness + saw something that could possibly indict others in a criminal matter then the criminals involved would have zero issues on murdering her, then dumping her body into a bag of water.

Especially if they were high on drugs. 🤯

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know that Scott Peterson did a lot of questionable things during his wife’s Laci’s disappearance as well as after her + Conner’s death.

First he claimed he played golf, then he said he actually went fishing.
He bought a new boat and Laci & Conner’s dead bodies were discovered in the area where he had been fishing.

It was also strange how he tried to sell his house as well as Laci’s vehicle shortly afterward.
And of course, having an affair while your wife is due to have your first baby is not a good look at all.

However, these are ALL circumstantial things.
Sure Scott is a lying, cheating rat of a husband.

But to convict him beyond a reasonable doubt would be actual evidence presented linking him directly to the crime.
Not simply basing his conviction on his nefarious behavior.

He and Laci could have been in a bad stage in their marriage. Perhaps they were staying together temporarily because she was expecting. This could explain his affair and his seemingly blasé attitude after she disappeared.
And while his actions made him appear suspect to some people, they do not necessarily point to him as a cold blooded murderer.

Playing Devil’s Advocate here, while I feel Scott likely did kill his wife, I don’t know as a juror on his case if the evidence was strong enough to put him behind bars.

Why on earth would any killer go thru the trouble of abducting a heavily pregnant woman and taking her out to sea to dispose of her body? A random killer would’ve left her in the house

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What a tremendous waste of LAIP funds. Will not donate to this local project again.
-IP lawyer

...sure you are

Anonymous wrote:What a tremendous waste of LAIP funds. Will not donate to this local project again.
-IP lawyer