Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I guess anything is possible but why, if Scott is innocent, did he dye his hair and appear to be fleeing to Mexico with $10,000 in cash?
"Scott Peterson was sporting a different hair color, a new beard, and toting $10,000 in cash and someone else's identification when he was arrested about 30 miles from the Mexican border on suspicion of killing his wife, Laci, reports say."
https://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/story?id=131979&page=1
If I remember correctly, the prevailing opinion was that he was guilty. It was a very public case. I could see an innocent person running in that situation. He had had an affair, which made him look guilty, even though all the evidence against him was circumstantial.
He didn't just have an affair. He had an affair and carried it on while his wife was "missing" and he was pretending to be involved in looking for her. He had a Happy New Year phone call with his paramour in which he pretended to be outside the Eiffel Tower in Paris while he was actually just outside a vigil her parents were putting on.
His compartmentalization skills were quite advanced. It's the kind of thing spouse murderers tend to be good at. That's not evidence that he's guilty; I'm just refreshing the collective recollection of exactly how messed up his behavior around this event was.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:It just seems so odd that any young husband would murder his pregnant wife. Was he in another relationship?
Um, Christopher Watts?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote: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.
What is the chance some random strangers committing burglary knew the exact spot a some neighbor across the street was going on an unplanned fishing trip on Christmas Eve? And said neighbor has just diy’d concrete anchors at his office and had no reason to be fishing in that area and the weather was not conducive to fishing and was also having an affair. So these burglars killed a near term pregnant women and managed to load her into their van and also on a boat to dump her without one single person seeing them and also having a air tight way to frame her husband all because they are some minor league house burglars. Really?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:This group (the LA Innocence Project) is a spin-off group from the main, most well-known one and doesn’t necessarily have the same standards to take a case.
That doesn’t mean the LA group doesn’t have good reasons, but people are attributing extra credibility because they think “The” Innocence Project is advocating for him.
There are innocence projects all over the country, aLL spun off from the original concept, and as a rule they are very well respected and do very detailed research before even making any kind of motions in a case.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Not many details yet, but I always assumed he was guilty. For the Innocence Project to get involved does that give anyone else pause to think...."hmmm maybe he is innocent?" If not Scott then the last 20 years have been wasted with any possible suspects being long gone.
https://abc7.com/scott-peterson-innocence-project-laci-murder/14337140/
The motions for DNA testing of evidence and access to other evidence have to do with the burglary across the street from Laci and Scott’s house; the theory that she witnessed the perpetrators on her way home from the dog walk and they abducted her has been in existence for years. The theory also suggests that her body was dumped in the Bay by the real killers after it was widely reported that Scott was fishing there on the day Laci disappeared.
I posted about that theory here a few years ago and people lost their minds berating and ridiculing me, so it’s interesting to see LA Innocence taking up the case as those projects don’t get involved without strong evidence of actual innocence.
If it turns out Laci’s DNA is on the mattress from the burned out can, thus Scott is innocent, how will all the people who demonized him for simply being a run of the mill philanderer going to feel?
Probably just glad he paid for his cheating with a couple decades of his life.
Burned out van, no thanks autocorrect!
Anonymous wrote:This group (the LA Innocence Project) is a spin-off group from the main, most well-known one and doesn’t necessarily have the same standards to take a case.
That doesn’t mean the LA group doesn’t have good reasons, but people are attributing extra credibility because they think “The” Innocence Project is advocating for him.
Anonymous wrote: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.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Not many details yet, but I always assumed he was guilty. For the Innocence Project to get involved does that give anyone else pause to think...."hmmm maybe he is innocent?" If not Scott then the last 20 years have been wasted with any possible suspects being long gone.
https://abc7.com/scott-peterson-innocence-project-laci-murder/14337140/
The motions for DNA testing of evidence and access to other evidence have to do with the burglary across the street from Laci and Scott’s house; the theory that she witnessed the perpetrators on her way home from the dog walk and they abducted her has been in existence for years. The theory also suggests that her body was dumped in the Bay by the real killers after it was widely reported that Scott was fishing there on the day Laci disappeared.
I posted about that theory here a few years ago and people lost their minds berating and ridiculing me, so it’s interesting to see LA Innocence taking up the case as those projects don’t get involved without strong evidence of actual innocence.
If it turns out Laci’s DNA is on the mattress from the burned out can, thus Scott is innocent, how will all the people who demonized him for simply being a run of the mill philanderer going to feel?
Probably just glad he paid for his cheating with a couple decades of his life.
Anonymous wrote:Not many details yet, but I always assumed he was guilty. For the Innocence Project to get involved does that give anyone else pause to think...."hmmm maybe he is innocent?" If not Scott then the last 20 years have been wasted with any possible suspects being long gone.
https://abc7.com/scott-peterson-innocence-project-laci-murder/14337140/
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I guess anything is possible but why, if Scott is innocent, did he dye his hair and appear to be fleeing to Mexico with $10,000 in cash?
"Scott Peterson was sporting a different hair color, a new beard, and toting $10,000 in cash and someone else's identification when he was arrested about 30 miles from the Mexican border on suspicion of killing his wife, Laci, reports say."
https://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/story?id=131979&page=1
If I remember correctly, the prevailing opinion was that he was guilty. It was a very public case. I could see an innocent person running in that situation. He had had an affair, which made him look guilty, even though all the evidence against him was circumstantial.
Anonymous wrote:It just seems so odd that any young husband would murder his pregnant wife. Was he in another relationship?