Anonymous wrote:There are so many better humans than Peterson.

Why would they do this they have so little funding?

Perhaps a large donation was made conditional.

Not only did he tell his ap that his wife was dead BEFORE his disappearance, he was on the phone with Amber DURING A LACI VIGIL. An innocent person would be frantic, at least for their unborn child if they no longer loved their MISSING spouse.

There are so many better humans than Peterson.

Why would they do this they have so little funding?

Anonymous wrote:This makes me think less of the Innocence Project rather than think better of Scott Peterson. I grew up very close to where the murder happened and there was no question—he’s guilty.

Questioning the Innocence Project exposes you for the racist you obviously are.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This makes me think less of the Innocence Project rather than think better of Scott Peterson. I grew up very close to where the murder happened and there was no question—he’s guilty.

And you know this how? Were you there? Did you see him murder Laci? DID YOU?

Do you only believe in a person’s guilt if you witnessed the crime? I don’t think you’re making the case you think you are.

I'm not trying to "make a case". What I am saying is that you, or PP gives your/their hardlined black and white statement that he is guilty...after all, you "grew up very close to where the murder happened". So? Your reasoning is basic and dumb.

I have always assumed he's guilty but maybe shame on me because I just followed the popular opinion in this case, like everyone else had also done. Let's see what LAIP comes up with.

Anonymous wrote:This makes me question all of their other cases- it's a bad move. They lost my respect.

But if they are indeed a different LA group, they very well may use a different standard for intake, e.g. "fair trial" instead of e.g. "new evidence of innocence"... which is fine, but doesn't really speak to the original group's MO.

He did it. He’s guilty.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This makes me think less of the Innocence Project rather than think better of Scott Peterson. I grew up very close to where the murder happened and there was no question—he’s guilty.

And you know this how? Were you there? Did you see him murder Laci? DID YOU?

Do you only believe in a person’s guilt if you witnessed the crime? I don’t think you’re making the case you think you are.

This makes me question all of their other cases- it's a bad move. They lost my respect.

I believe they are taking his case because they don't think he got a fair trial because one of the jurors Richelle Nice i.e. "Strawberry Shortcake" had some really bizarre behavior and should have been disqualified from the jury pool.

That doesn't mean he is innocent and a second trial wouldn't also convict him, but he is entitled to a fair trial.

https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/crime/scott-peterson-strawberry-shortcake-jury-retrial-b2146371.html

Anonymous wrote:This makes me think less of the Innocence Project rather than think better of Scott Peterson. I grew up very close to where the murder happened and there was no question—he’s guilty.

I always thought he was guilty but seeing this news yesterday made me go back and look up an article on the case. What I remember most is the media reporting that was all angled to make him look guilty.

I also tend towards people don't really remember things as they claim to but they say it once to the police and then get nervous about back tracking bc they don't want to get in trouble for lying.

Then there are details to paint the person as suspicious like random questions and snippets of larger conversations.

He had a lot of affairs. Maybe the new evidence is from someone he met up with that day like maybe a prostitute and he didn't want to admit that right away to the police bc it would make him look bad so he stuck with the story about fishing. Sometimes people just don't want to get involved with criminal cases so they never come forward and keep their mouth shut.

It will be interesting to see what the new evidence is.

Anonymous wrote:This makes me think less of the Innocence Project rather than think better of Scott Peterson. I grew up very close to where the murder happened and there was no question—he’s guilty.

And you know this how? Were you there? Did you see him murder Laci? DID YOU?

Anonymous wrote:This makes me think less of the Innocence Project rather than think better of Scott Peterson. I grew up very close to where the murder happened and there was no question—he’s guilty.

Yup.

This makes me think less of the Innocence Project rather than think better of Scott Peterson. I grew up very close to where the murder happened and there was no question—he’s guilty.

The burglars couldn’t take the chance of getting caught and so they killed Laci and then they dumped her body where Scott had been fishing because that information was released earlier when she was still just missing.
The police ignored the leads. He is not a saint, or even a good person really for what he did as far as having an affair, but I don’t believe that he did this. Even just watching the American nightmare documentary on Netflix has changed my view of how low the police will sometimes go to be able to pin a crime on somebody else, or ignore obvious leads.