Anonymous wrote:Nothing about the case makes any sense whatsoever. Laci was missing at 8 months pregnant and was found with different clothes and a newborn baby supposedly a coffin death even though instead of umblicial cord he was found with twine tied in a bow around
The neck.

No anchors found tied to her body like the courts say but Tape was on both bodies apparently unloosed by four
Months in the bay. So anchors don’t stay under water but tape does? Ahh, ok.

She was found with her head missing and many internal organs missing and a few broken ribs. A hole in her uterus implying birth. A sealed autopsy.

It was horrific what was done and I just don’t think Scott could do all of that and get away with it on a tiny aluminum boat in broad daylight parked in a busy marina. The Berkeley marina even has boat residents who live in yachts. There’s no way he could dump a body in plain view of all this

Accept it. So many of this has already been answered. Nobody cares about the various van theories and the Judge has refused to revisit it. Peterson and his band of loons have no new evidence that might make a case.

Nothing about the case makes any sense whatsoever. Laci was missing at 8 months pregnant and was found with different clothes and a newborn baby supposedly a coffin death even though instead of umblicial cord he was found with twine tied in a bow around
The neck.

No anchors found tied to her body like the courts say but Tape was on both bodies apparently unloosed by four
Months in the bay. So anchors don’t stay under water but tape does? Ahh, ok.

She was found with her head missing and many internal organs missing and a few broken ribs. A hole in her uterus implying birth. A sealed autopsy.

It was horrific what was done and I just don’t think Scott could do all of that and get away with it on a tiny aluminum boat in broad daylight parked in a busy marina. The Berkeley marina even has boat residents who live in yachts. There’s no way he could dump a body in plain view of all this

So burglars are going to keep a pregnant woman for months until she gives birth just so they now have to kill a baby instead of killing her immediately. Again sensible explanation.

One thing the dumbass guilters say is Scott never called Laci’s cell phone if she really went missing.

Well, did the cops ever locate via cell phone where she was? They don’t realize they are saying they believe Scott’s innocent by talking about calling a cell phone

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

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Scott Peterson sympathizer sounds like a defense attorney throwing out all kinds of random conjectures in order to facilitate doubt. But that doesn't work in this court of public opinion. If Scott didn't do it, give us a rational, detailed, and thorough explanation of what you believe happened instead. And explain away any conflicting evidence.

I already did. What are the chances of 2 crimes (burglary/home invasion and Lacis disappearance) happening at the same time right across the street from each other?

Not absolute zero.

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.

I cannot believe these psychos on here rooting for this absolute monster to get off. Do you know anything about this case? What about the anchors? What about the conversation he had with someone about anchoring the body and it being the perfect way to dispose of it? What about the tarps and umbrellas in the back of the truck? What about not using the fishing stuff? What about lying about playing golf? What about immediately stating she’s missing? What about getting rid of her stuff? What about the hair on the boat stuff when it was brand new and she had never been on it? What about buying the boat immediately before she was killed and dumped in the bay? You think some local meth heads committing petty crime upped the ante 10000000% and when she saw them - an 8 month pregnant lady without her phone walking - they were “terrified” and had to quick kill her? And then they kept her body until the news reported where he had been fishing and decided that to avoid getting caught they would anchor her arms and legs and drive an hour and a half to the bay, row out on a boat which of course all drug addicts with zero money have, and dispose of the body. That sounds plausible. Totally more reasonable than the jury’s decision to convict a man unanimously of murder. Premeditated murder.

Anonymous wrote:Also, the woman with the dog who supposedly smelled Laci at the marina failed its certification test twice as a police sniffer dog.

She was just some rando from the community who wanted Scott convicted. Her dog was not certified

Yet the judge allowed it while you just make things up on the internet when the facts don’t suit you.

Anonymous wrote:Whatever. Even if by some chance he's innocent I'm ok with him being found guilty due to his behavior

This is seriously one of the only cases where I feel this too.

Poor Amber.
If he was just playing her then he’s a cad who was leading a single mom to think she had found Prince Charming.

If he was in love with Amber then he was looking for a way out of his marriage and dad-obligations. He even told Amber it would be his first Christmas without his wife. And that he LOST her.
Then when Amber questioned him he said “there’s other ways to lose someone” ICK.

So callous. Cold.

Selling her car? Moving stuff into the nursery? Making a call to Amber the night of the vigil on New Years Eve, pretending he was at a celebration in Paris?
He wasn’t in mourning, and he certainly wasn’t expecting his wife and unborn baby to come home and live with him again.

Anonymous wrote:Most murderers don’t deny it. They’ll plea out to manslaughter since the judge and prosecution looks favorably upon pleas.

Says who? You are just making things up at this point.

Also, the woman with the dog who supposedly smelled Laci at the marina failed its certification test twice as a police sniffer dog.

She was just some rando from the community who wanted Scott convicted. Her dog was not certified

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another issue is polygraphs depend on your heart rate and bp and physiological response to questions but given he had a missing wife and was being interrogated, there’s probably no real way he would’ve passed with calm body language anyway and the cops (already against him) knew that and wanted to sink him with the test

I bet in hindsight Scott regrets not taking the polygraph.

I think so too, but the polygraph may have been a set up.

The cop didn’t like him from day 1 and would’ve asked the questions intentionally to trip him up. “did you see Laci before she last disappeared?” The answer would’ve been yes. “Did you and Laci have a good marriage or any marital problems recently?” “Did you and Laci ever fight?” Every married couple argues from time to time. “Did you wash your fishing clothes after Lacis disappearance ?”

Brocchini was not going to play the questions fairly. I’m curious to know how the burglars passed the polygraph when their initial statements were lies. One of the guys said the burglary happened on December 27th (a lie) and they also insisted they had nothing to do with the missing woman with the baby. So why lie and say it happened on December 27th if they had not bring to do with it? It’s on police notes as December 27th and December 24th but the Medinas came back from their trip on the 26th.

They were robbing houses to fund a drug habit. They were not office workers with calendars. This was explained by the detective.

They were questioned that same week. They knew it was the 24th and that’s the day laci went missing. The family they robbed came back the 26th so they knew it was Christmas Eve.

What are the chances two crimes happen next to each other on the same morning right across the street from each other?

It would be nice if they checked the Medina house for any clues of Laci being there or fingerprints but I guess it’s too late. If they had a huge van outside while stealing things, Laci would’ve definitely seen that on her walk back with the dog and perhaps asked them what they’re doing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another issue is polygraphs depend on your heart rate and bp and physiological response to questions but given he had a missing wife and was being interrogated, there’s probably no real way he would’ve passed with calm body language anyway and the cops (already against him) knew that and wanted to sink him with the test

I bet in hindsight Scott regrets not taking the polygraph.

I think so too, but the polygraph may have been a set up.

The cop didn’t like him from day 1 and would’ve asked the questions intentionally to trip him up. “did you see Laci before she last disappeared?” The answer would’ve been yes. “Did you and Laci have a good marriage or any marital problems recently?” “Did you and Laci ever fight?” Every married couple argues from time to time. “Did you wash your fishing clothes after Lacis disappearance ?”

Brocchini was not going to play the questions fairly. I’m curious to know how the burglars passed the polygraph when their initial statements were lies. One of the guys said the burglary happened on December 27th (a lie) and they also insisted they had nothing to do with the missing woman with the baby. So why lie and say it happened on December 27th if they had not bring to do with it? It’s on police notes as December 27th and December 24th but the Medinas came back from their trip on the 26th.

Honestly, who cares? He had his day in court, lost and all of his appeals and requests are denied. Scott is screwed. Accept it.

Ugh, you can be Scott. Do you not get that it’s bigger than Scott Peterson?

If the last person you saw disappeared suddenly, you will be on the police radar and anything about your actions during their observations can make you a suspect and you won’t have any clue. If your child runs away, you will be a suspect even if you have nothing to do with it. If your son’s girlfriend disappears, he’ll be a suspect.

The system is supposed to work the way the founders wanted when it comes to presumption of innocence until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Do you know what means?

We aren’t supposed to have cops, prosecutor journalists like Nancy Grace, or tabloids convicting people in the news before their day in court.

Then the Scotts of the world shouldn’t act so guilty. Face it, he did this to himself.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another issue is polygraphs depend on your heart rate and bp and physiological response to questions but given he had a missing wife and was being interrogated, there’s probably no real way he would’ve passed with calm body language anyway and the cops (already against him) knew that and wanted to sink him with the test

I bet in hindsight Scott regrets not taking the polygraph.

I think so too, but the polygraph may have been a set up.

The cop didn’t like him from day 1 and would’ve asked the questions intentionally to trip him up. “did you see Laci before she last disappeared?” The answer would’ve been yes. “Did you and Laci have a good marriage or any marital problems recently?” “Did you and Laci ever fight?” Every married couple argues from time to time. “Did you wash your fishing clothes after Lacis disappearance ?”

Brocchini was not going to play the questions fairly. I’m curious to know how the burglars passed the polygraph when their initial statements were lies. One of the guys said the burglary happened on December 27th (a lie) and they also insisted they had nothing to do with the missing woman with the baby. So why lie and say it happened on December 27th if they had not bring to do with it? It’s on police notes as December 27th and December 24th but the Medinas came back from their trip on the 26th.

They were robbing houses to fund a drug habit. They were not office workers with calendars. This was explained by the detective.