The Los Angeles Innocence Project doesn’t just take cases on for exoneration without research.

Scott getting the death penalty without any physical evidence is atrocious.

Connor was found with twine around his neck and electrical tape on his ear. How did that stick around for 2 months in the water? It’s obvious laci and the baby were killed and dumped later in January. Twine around the neck of Connor is also unusual to happen in the water. Someone placed it there

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find him guilty primarily based on two things:

• He told his GF, Amber Frey that his wife was “lost” on Dec. 9th so it is pretty clear to me that he was already planning Laci’s demise ahead of time.

Also:

• It cannot be a mere coincidence that Laci and Conner’s bodies were found 90 min. away so close to where Scott claimed to have gone fishing the day Laci went missing.

I mean, c’mon.
The mere fact that the location was 1.5 hrs. away AND they were found……or rather washed up……so close to where Scott went fishing 🎣 is just too obvious.

Most married men that cheat are liars. If you lie, you can cheat. If you cheat, you have to lie.

Saying his wife was “lost” or “gone” or “its over” was just a way to keep Amber interested and happy. I am sure Bill told Monica things were long over between Him and Hillary. That’s just what men say when they want to get in a young woman’s pants.

He was a piece of shit but there’s no evidence he was actually planning on leaving his eight month pregnant wife and their son.

Scott was visibly pained and asked to not see the pictures of his dead son found in the SF Bay.

As for dying his hair and trying to run, he was doing that because he was freaked out by the paparazzi and police presence and neighbors threatening him. You would want to change your appearance too.

Nancy Grace is a pox on this country

With $15k in cash? And someone elses ID? Super close to the border? C'mon now.

Janie, is that you???

Running away is something anyone would do if the media circus was hounding you outside your house. Again, that isn’t evidence of any guilt.

The forensics don’t tie Scott to the crime. All the evidence that convicted Scott was circumstantial

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find him guilty primarily based on two things:

• He told his GF, Amber Frey that his wife was “lost” on Dec. 9th so it is pretty clear to me that he was already planning Laci’s demise ahead of time.

Also:

• It cannot be a mere coincidence that Laci and Conner’s bodies were found 90 min. away so close to where Scott claimed to have gone fishing the day Laci went missing.

I mean, c’mon.
The mere fact that the location was 1.5 hrs. away AND they were found……or rather washed up……so close to where Scott went fishing 🎣 is just too obvious.

Most married men that cheat are liars. If you lie, you can cheat. If you cheat, you have to lie.

Saying his wife was “lost” or “gone” or “its over” was just a way to keep Amber interested and happy. I am sure Bill told Monica things were long over between Him and Hillary. That’s just what men say when they want to get in a young woman’s pants.

He was a piece of shit but there’s no evidence he was actually planning on leaving his eight month pregnant wife and their son.

Scott was visibly pained and asked to not see the pictures of his dead son found in the SF Bay.

As for dying his hair and trying to run, he was doing that because he was freaked out by the paparazzi and police presence and neighbors threatening him. You would want to change your appearance too.

Nancy Grace is a pox on this country

With $15k in cash? And someone elses ID? Super close to the border? C'mon now.

Janie, is that you???

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The guy is clearly guilty. I’m shocked that anyone with a functioning brain could think otherwise.

No forensic DNA tied him to the death. It’s all circumstantial evidence like what he told his girlfriend about the relationship being over (most cheaters say that ) and going fishing.

That doesn’t mean he killed his wife.

They found her hair in a pair of pliers on his boat that he used to dump her body.

Is DNA evidence the only way to prove a murder?

Hair is found anywhere. That’s not proof of murder. Laci had thick head of long curly hair. I’m sure her hair follicles shed everywhere.





Where is the blood evidence? Laci was practically decapitated. Her body was dismembered. Where were the scratches and bruises on his arm from Laci fighting back during the strangulation? Where’s the evidence from Laci’s mop that he used in the house to clean up? What about the duct tape on her mouth? No evidence there either. No blood on the boat.

Do you really think he’d do all that especially on Christmas Eve when everyone was at home and had family over? He just dismembered a body or carried it out whole into his car on Christmas morning and went fishing to dump the body? Dog apparently doesn’t say a thing during all this dismemberment. He calls Lacis family to ask where she is in the afternoon. Why would he want to alarm them that she’s missing and not home? That gives him away if he’s the killer right?

All of the damage to Laci's body was inflicted in the water. It was not dismembered prior. The fetus was expelled in the water from the pressure of gas buildup. The most likely scenario is in fact that she was strangled from behind as she was mopping. She was heavily pregnant and he was far stronger. Was his body even checked for scratches? Anyway, all it took was gloves and long sleeves to avoid those too. There is simply no credible alternative to his guilt, including the low-level robbery that doesn't fit the timeline. Telling his mistress ahead of time that he "lost" his wife is unbelievably damning, as is the "fishing." And he's now lying about the affair too, claiming it was just sex and due to his low self-esteem. He promised Amber a future and that he'd be happy with her kid. He is a stone cold liar and killer.

That makes no sense. How does water dismember a person? The state/prosecution came up with that to explain the lack of blood evidence.

The defense is adamant she was kidnapped, gave birth, and was killed and dismembered shortly after

Yeah, the defense claims are weak, far more evidence to the contrary. Her body was held done by weights and buffeted by currents and debris. Submerged for MONTHS it weakened and tore apart. The fetus likely wasn't expelled until several months under water.

https://www.oxygen.com/crime-news/what-happened-to-laci-peterson-baby-conner

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The guy is clearly guilty. I’m shocked that anyone with a functioning brain could think otherwise.

No forensic DNA tied him to the death. It’s all circumstantial evidence like what he told his girlfriend about the relationship being over (most cheaters say that ) and going fishing.

That doesn’t mean he killed his wife.

He didnt say the relationship was over, he said his wife died and this would be the first xmas without her. How f**ked in the head do you have to be to think that means theyre just broken up?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The guy is clearly guilty. I’m shocked that anyone with a functioning brain could think otherwise.

No forensic DNA tied him to the death. It’s all circumstantial evidence like what he told his girlfriend about the relationship being over (most cheaters say that ) and going fishing.

That doesn’t mean he killed his wife.

They found her hair in a pair of pliers on his boat that he used to dump her body.

Is DNA evidence the only way to prove a murder?

Hair is found anywhere. That’s not proof of murder. Laci had thick head of long curly hair. I’m sure her hair follicles shed everywhere.



Where is the blood evidence? Laci was practically decapitated. Her body was dismembered. Where were the scratches and bruises on his arm from Laci fighting back during the strangulation? Where’s the evidence from Laci’s mop that he used in the house to clean up? What about the duct tape on her mouth? No evidence there either. No blood on the boat.

Do you really think he’d do all that especially on Christmas Eve when everyone was at home and had family over? He just dismembered a body or carried it out whole into his car on Christmas morning and went fishing to dump the body? Dog apparently doesn’t say a thing during all this dismemberment. He calls Lacis family to ask where she is in the afternoon. Why would he want to alarm them that she’s missing and not home? That gives him away if he’s the killer right?

All of the damage to Laci's body was inflicted in the water. It was not dismembered prior. The fetus was expelled in the water from the pressure of gas buildup. The most likely scenario is in fact that she was strangled from behind as she was mopping. She was heavily pregnant and he was far stronger. Was his body even checked for scratches? Anyway, all it took was gloves and long sleeves to avoid those too. There is simply no credible alternative to his guilt, including the low-level robbery that doesn't fit the timeline. Telling his mistress ahead of time that he "lost" his wife is unbelievably damning, as is the "fishing." And he's now lying about the affair too, claiming it was just sex and due to his low self-esteem. He promised Amber a future and that he'd be happy with her kid. He is a stone cold liar and killer.

That makes no sense. How does water dismember a person? The state/prosecution came up with that to explain the lack of blood evidence.

The defense is adamant she was kidnapped, gave birth, and was killed and dismembered shortly after

The idea that he didn’t cry is also not good enough evidence. He was cheating on her and letting his eight month pregnant wife mop the floor and go on walks without him. He wasn’t the most emotive guy but that doesn’t necessarily mean he killed her either.

All of the things used in this case were emotion.

It wasn’t as obvious as Casey Anthony who clearly googled chloroform the Week before her daughter disappeared. Casey is an actual psychopath.

Scott was just a detached husband who didn’t want to be in a marriage and that made him an A hole but murderer? Only dna can tell us that and the gruesomeness of the crime just fits more with sick serial killers than a husband. What would he have to gain by killing Laci? He was already talking with Amber and probably still could’ve gotten away with cheating and laci would’ve been none the wiser. Also, he never discussed termination of the baby with Laci according to family sources and he was happy to become a dad so there’s no evidence that parenthood was what he wanted to avoid. Laci was not on any birth control at the time and her family reported she never used it.


Lastly, why would he call Lacis parents and ask where she is if it’s meant to be an alibi? That’s the absolute worst thing he could’ve done if he just killed her and dumped her body in the bay

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The guy is clearly guilty. I’m shocked that anyone with a functioning brain could think otherwise.

No forensic DNA tied him to the death. It’s all circumstantial evidence like what he told his girlfriend about the relationship being over (most cheaters say that ) and going fishing.

That doesn’t mean he killed his wife.

Just because it's circumstantial evidence doesn't mean he did not kill her. There's enough circumstances that lead to the conclusion he killed her.

Life without parole and lethal injection is an insane sentence for a case with zero forensic evidence.

DNA doesn’t lie. Forensics always give the right clues and tell the truth and yet they’re never used in cases. People use “assumed narratives” and use your words against you. If you got in an argument with your spouse and they vanished and died the next day, you can go to jail because the courts have decided you had motive because you told them to “get lost”.

That’s how flimsy circumstantial evidence is. Scott telling Amber Laci is out of the picture and soon she’ll be gone and it’ll just be them 2 doesn’t mean he killed her. Only forensics can tell us that and there’s no way he could behead and Dismember her body without the dog altering the neighborhood, the house and car being a huge bloody mess, and the boat as well. Human blood stains do not just disappear easily let alone an entire pool of blood from beheading. A white boat and carpeted house and car could not be that clean with a gruesome crime like that

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The guy is clearly guilty. I’m shocked that anyone with a functioning brain could think otherwise.

No forensic DNA tied him to the death. It’s all circumstantial evidence like what he told his girlfriend about the relationship being over (most cheaters say that ) and going fishing.

That doesn’t mean he killed his wife.

They found her hair in a pair of pliers on his boat that he used to dump her body.

Is DNA evidence the only way to prove a murder?

It is to the braindead morons who have watched too much CSI and are under the impression that an abundance of circumstantial evidence can never add up to… evidence.

Circumstantial evidence is often wrong and due to grand assumptions and narrative creating.

Forensic evidence is always the biggest and most accurate way to solve a crime and yet in most crime cases in the US they’re rarely used because dna testing is new and it’s very expensive for police depts. Looking at phone and email records are easier. Due to his affair, Scott’s own words were able to be used to build a motive and a case.

There isn’t any physical evidence in this case linking Scott to the crime. It’s all circumstantial speculation that he’s guilty because he cheated on his wife, went fishing, and ordered porn 3 days after she was missing.

That doesn’t mean he killed her. A cheater ordering porn is not a surprise.

He received the death penalty and life in jail without parole for a crime that had nothing about 100% circumstantial “evidence”. That’s insane

I’ll bet you are also unconvinced that OJ killed Nicole and Ron…

They probably also don’t think Chris Watts killed his family.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The guy is clearly guilty. I’m shocked that anyone with a functioning brain could think otherwise.

No forensic DNA tied him to the death. It’s all circumstantial evidence like what he told his girlfriend about the relationship being over (most cheaters say that ) and going fishing.

That doesn’t mean he killed his wife.

They found her hair in a pair of pliers on his boat that he used to dump her body.

Is DNA evidence the only way to prove a murder?

It is to the braindead morons who have watched too much CSI and are under the impression that an abundance of circumstantial evidence can never add up to… evidence.

Circumstantial evidence is often wrong and due to grand assumptions and narrative creating.

Forensic evidence is always the biggest and most accurate way to solve a crime and yet in most crime cases in the US they’re rarely used because dna testing is new and it’s very expensive for police depts. Looking at phone and email records are easier. Due to his affair, Scott’s own words were able to be used to build a motive and a case.

There isn’t any physical evidence in this case linking Scott to the crime. It’s all circumstantial speculation that he’s guilty because he cheated on his wife, went fishing, and ordered porn 3 days after she was missing.

That doesn’t mean he killed her. A cheater ordering porn is not a surprise.

He received the death penalty and life in jail without parole for a crime that had nothing about 100% circumstantial “evidence”. That’s insane

I’ll bet you are also unconvinced that OJ killed Nicole and Ron…

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The guy is clearly guilty. I’m shocked that anyone with a functioning brain could think otherwise.

No forensic DNA tied him to the death. It’s all circumstantial evidence like what he told his girlfriend about the relationship being over (most cheaters say that ) and going fishing.

That doesn’t mean he killed his wife.

They found her hair in a pair of pliers on his boat that he used to dump her body.

Is DNA evidence the only way to prove a murder?

Hair is found anywhere. That’s not proof of murder. Laci had thick head of long curly hair. I’m sure her hair follicles shed everywhere.



Where is the blood evidence? Laci was practically decapitated. Her body was dismembered. Where were the scratches and bruises on his arm from Laci fighting back during the strangulation? Where’s the evidence from Laci’s mop that he used in the house to clean up? What about the duct tape on her mouth? No evidence there either. No blood on the boat.

Do you really think he’d do all that especially on Christmas Eve when everyone was at home and had family over? He just dismembered a body or carried it out whole into his car on Christmas morning and went fishing to dump the body? Dog apparently doesn’t say a thing during all this dismemberment. He calls Lacis family to ask where she is in the afternoon. Why would he want to alarm them that she’s missing and not home? That gives him away if he’s the killer right?

All of the damage to Laci's body was inflicted in the water. It was not dismembered prior. The fetus was expelled in the water from the pressure of gas buildup. The most likely scenario is in fact that she was strangled from behind as she was mopping. She was heavily pregnant and he was far stronger. Was his body even checked for scratches? Anyway, all it took was gloves and long sleeves to avoid those too. There is simply no credible alternative to his guilt, including the low-level robbery that doesn't fit the timeline. Telling his mistress ahead of time that he "lost" his wife is unbelievably damning, as is the "fishing." And he's now lying about the affair too, claiming it was just sex and due to his low self-esteem. He promised Amber a future and that he'd be happy with her kid. He is a stone cold liar and killer.

Yeah, funny how PP makes all kinds of erroneous conclusions despite having almost no accurate information about the case.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The guy is clearly guilty. I’m shocked that anyone with a functioning brain could think otherwise.

No forensic DNA tied him to the death. It’s all circumstantial evidence like what he told his girlfriend about the relationship being over (most cheaters say that ) and going fishing.

That doesn’t mean he killed his wife.

They found her hair in a pair of pliers on his boat that he used to dump her body.

Is DNA evidence the only way to prove a murder?

Hair is found anywhere. That’s not proof of murder. Laci had thick head of long curly hair. I’m sure her hair follicles shed everywhere.



Where is the blood evidence? Laci was practically decapitated. Her body was dismembered. Where were the scratches and bruises on his arm from Laci fighting back during the strangulation? Where’s the evidence from Laci’s mop that he used in the house to clean up? What about the duct tape on her mouth? No evidence there either. No blood on the boat.

Do you really think he’d do all that especially on Christmas Eve when everyone was at home and had family over? He just dismembered a body or carried it out whole into his car on Christmas morning and went fishing to dump the body? Dog apparently doesn’t say a thing during all this dismemberment. He calls Lacis family to ask where she is in the afternoon. Why would he want to alarm them that she’s missing and not home? That gives him away if he’s the killer right?

He likely drugged her. He didn't dismember her. He weighed her down and sank her body in the water. Animals ate her and free her from the anchors and she floated to where she was found. Water also washes away evidence which is why he also washed his clothes when right after he got home. Most boasters rinse their boat off when they take it out of the water to remove the salt. Explain why he made multiple anchors for the boat that are missing? As far as a talking dog, I worry for you. Most dogs don't talk regardless if someone they know is being murdered. Last point, on Christmas eve they had no one over and he in fact was not home with his 8 months pregnant wife, but rather was taking his boat out for the first time ever 90 miles away. Then her body was found a few miles from said location. Stop being dumb.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find him guilty primarily based on two things:

• He told his GF, Amber Frey that his wife was “lost” on Dec. 9th so it is pretty clear to me that he was already planning Laci’s demise ahead of time.

Also:

• It cannot be a mere coincidence that Laci and Conner’s bodies were found 90 min. away so close to where Scott claimed to have gone fishing the day Laci went missing.

I mean, c’mon.
The mere fact that the location was 1.5 hrs. away AND they were found……or rather washed up……so close to where Scott went fishing 🎣 is just too obvious.

Most married men that cheat are liars. If you lie, you can cheat. If you cheat, you have to lie.

Saying his wife was “lost” or “gone” or “its over” was just a way to keep Amber interested and happy. I am sure Bill told Monica things were long over between Him and Hillary. That’s just what men say when they want to get in a young woman’s pants.

He was a piece of shit but there’s no evidence he was actually planning on leaving his eight month pregnant wife and their son.

Scott was visibly pained and asked to not see the pictures of his dead son found in the SF Bay.

As for dying his hair and trying to run, he was doing that because he was freaked out by the paparazzi and police presence and neighbors threatening him. You would want to change your appearance too.

Nancy Grace is a pox on this country

Would a man pained about his missing pregnant wife, call the other woman from the vigil? Would he sell missing wife's car and make the baby's room a storage room if he actually thought they were coming home? That in addition to telling Amber his wife was gone. It's like he knew some how they weren't coming home alive.

Of course he knew, and wasn't smart enough to pretend he didn't.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find him guilty primarily based on two things:

• He told his GF, Amber Frey that his wife was “lost” on Dec. 9th so it is pretty clear to me that he was already planning Laci’s demise ahead of time.

Also:

• It cannot be a mere coincidence that Laci and Conner’s bodies were found 90 min. away so close to where Scott claimed to have gone fishing the day Laci went missing.

I mean, c’mon.
The mere fact that the location was 1.5 hrs. away AND they were found……or rather washed up……so close to where Scott went fishing 🎣 is just too obvious.

Most married men that cheat are liars. If you lie, you can cheat. If you cheat, you have to lie.

Saying his wife was “lost” or “gone” or “its over” was just a way to keep Amber interested and happy. I am sure Bill told Monica things were long over between Him and Hillary. That’s just what men say when they want to get in a young woman’s pants.

He was a piece of shit but there’s no evidence he was actually planning on leaving his eight month pregnant wife and their son.

Scott was visibly pained and asked to not see the pictures of his dead son found in the SF Bay.

As for dying his hair and trying to run, he was doing that because he was freaked out by the paparazzi and police presence and neighbors threatening him. You would want to change your appearance too.

Nancy Grace is a pox on this country

Would a man pained about his missing pregnant wife, call the other woman from the vigil? Would he sell missing wife's car and make the baby's room a storage room if he actually thought they were coming home? That in addition to telling Amber his wife was gone. It's like he knew some how they weren't coming home alive.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The guy is clearly guilty. I’m shocked that anyone with a functioning brain could think otherwise.

No forensic DNA tied him to the death. It’s all circumstantial evidence like what he told his girlfriend about the relationship being over (most cheaters say that ) and going fishing.

That doesn’t mean he killed his wife.

Just because it's circumstantial evidence doesn't mean he did not kill her. There's enough circumstances that lead to the conclusion he killed her.