Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Oh. So that's what happened. I didn't know that. Thanks.
This case was one of those that had so much media attention it was like a circus. I watched Garagos in action and all I can say is, I would never hire this man to defend me. He's a media ***** and took the case for publicity, imo.
Of course and it made him a lot of money and now he is an "expert" for CNN so easy pay check for his opinion.
But to his defense most of these defense lawyers do it for the publicity and one the biggest ones is Gloria Alred.
I remember hearing everything unfold in the media and I thought that Scott was probably guilty, but I had some doubts as to it, even back then. The more I learn about this case, the more I believe that Scott Peterson was most likely, wrongfully convicted.
People point to the fact that Laci and Connor's bodies were found in the area where Scott went boating the day Laci disappeared but the information regarding his location on that day was in the media long before the bodies were found. How easy would it be for someone to take that information from the media and dump the bodies at that location because they already knew that Scott would be blamed?
There are a lot of things that don't add up in the case. It's a very sad situation, especially for Laci, Connor and Laci's family. But I also have my doubts that Scott is actually guilty of this horrific crime.
Some of these criminals could have videotapes their crimes and still have gotten off. I have no understanding of how the psychology of this plays out, but you see it in high profile cases. Overexposure to the details creates doubt? Not seeing the forest for the trees syndrome? Wanting to play devil's advocate to the mainstream's opinion? I have no clue...
But, you see it with OJ, this piece of crap on this thread, Casey Anthony, etc., etc... Even the crackpot sicko who killed his wife and 2 toddlers... Jeffrey McDonald, upright citizen MD who says the floppy hatted woman did it. There are those who believe he is innocent. They're all sociopaths who can convince other of their lies. They started this behavior as young people probably, genetically predisposed to it and then they cultivated it through learned behaviors. They have learned well how to manipulate the public!!
Some of these criminals could have videotapes their crimes and still have gotten off. I have no understanding of how the psychology of this plays out, but you see it in high profile cases. Overexposure to the details creates doubt? Not seeing the forest for the trees syndrome? Wanting to play devil's advocate to the mainstream's opinion? I have no clue...
Have you considered that it may just be a matter of some people looking at the facts of a case, applying some critical thought, and having a healthy skepticism of what the mainstream media reports? Or who refuse to blindly accept that the police and DA's office are competent and trustworthy? I personally have no doubt as to the guilt of the other defendants you've mentioned, but I do question the verdict in this case. I've given some solid reasons why that is, none of which you've taken the time to reply to. It's very easy to dismiss opinions that differ from yours by claiming they're merely the result of some psychological issue. So while I admit it takes a lot more effort(and character) to listen, consider, and offer a well-reasoned response, I wish you had chosen to do that instead.
Have you considered that it may just be a matter of some people looking at the facts of a case, applying some critical thought, and having a healthy skepticism of what the mainstream media reports? Or who refuse to blindly accept that the police and DA's office are competent and trustworthy? I personally have no doubt as to the guilt of the other defendants you've mentioned, but I do question the verdict in this case. I've given some solid reasons why that is, none of which you've taken the time to reply to. It's very easy to dismiss opinions that differ from yours by claiming they're merely the result of some psychological issue. So while I admit it takes a lot more effort(and character) to listen, consider, and offer a well-reasoned response, I wish you had chosen to do that instead.
I agree. There are so many things that don't add up in the Scott Peterson case. The autopsy report leaves more questions then answers. Looking at the evidence critically is just that. It's not a "psychological issue" lol. People are wrongfully committed sometimes. Based on what is known about this particular case, I do think that the conviction is questionable.
"...a long solid chain of reasons why Scott could have had reasons"? Huh? You're really stretching here. That could fit just about anyone, the way it reads. There was no financial motive: Laci was worth more to him alive than dead. Everyone, including Laci's family, testified that he was very involved in the pregnancy and was excited about being a father. Amber Frey? Even the State acknowledged that was ridiculous. So, here this guy, who is liked by seemingly everyone, who has no criminal history, no juvenile record, never been in a fight as far as we know, no history of even raising his voice, up and murders his wife? In a perfectly executed plan, leaving not a single piece of evidence behind? He had an affair and lied about it, that's the worst anyone would say about Scott.
.
Ummm... You forgot the part where Lacy found Scott the Boy Scout in bed with a girlfriend. And you can bet the farm if he didn't raise his voice LACY did.
Most psychopaths ARE liked by everyone. They know how to charm. Then they snicker at all the suckers who buy into it. He'a killer who, no doubt, was very good at making people think he wanted a child. Right up to the moment he made sure he never had one.
There was evidence. You've chosen to not believe that evidence, but there was evidence. It was presented to a jury and he was found guilty because of that evidence.
Last edited by DewDropInn; 10-30-2014 at 08:52 PM..
Scott Peterson is GUILTY of being an adulterer. No doubt about that. That fact doesn't automatically make him a murderer. The facts of the case leave much room for doubt in regards to him being guilty of murder.
Last edited by MissTerri; 10-31-2014 at 12:13 PM..
Ummm... You forgot the part where Lacy found Scott the Boy Scout in bed with a girlfriend. And you can bet the farm if he didn't raise his voice LACY did.
Most psychopaths ARE liked by everyone. They know how to charm. Then they snicker at all the suckers who buy into it. He'a killer who, no doubt, was very good at making people think he wanted a child. Right up to the moment he made sure he never had one.
There was evidence. You've chosen to not believe that evidence, but there was evidence. It was presented to a jury and he was found guilty because of that evidence.
I'm not sure what you mean when you say I forgot this part. I'm aware that he had at least one previous affair. I don't think him a "Boy Scout", but him being a philanderer, even a serial one, does not make him any more or less likely to be a murderer.
The jury was never given any information regarding his psychiatric health. So even if I accept your layman's assessment(please correct me if I'm wrong) that he's a "psychopath", this was not considered by the jury, at least not properly.
There was a lot of evidence that he had an affair and lied about it. There was no evidence that he killed Laci and dumped her in the Bay. None. Even if I believe that he made several anchors, that doesn't prove he used them to weigh down her body. Even if I believe that he wanted to be free from the restraints of his marriage, or his pending fatherhood, that isn't evidence that he killed Laci. As I mentioned earlier, the theory presented by the State of how Laci died was nothing more that a figment of someone's imagination. Showing that something could've happened isn't the same as showing that it did happen. They could not, and did not, produce one single piece of evidence to show that any of it actually happened. They simply showed that he was an unfaithful husband and asked the jury to presume him guilty of murder because of it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
He's a media ***** and took the case for publicity, imo.
in bed with a girlfriend. And you can bet the farm if he didn't raise his voice LACY did.