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.
Never mind the question of why a couple of robbers would then travel to the ocean to dispose of the body. That's a big question that appears to be is easily explained with the claim that it was critically important to the robbers to frame the husband of their victim - never mind that this tactic is completely unheard of in the history of abducted and murdered women.
Oh...and if the absence of forensic evidence satisfies defenders of Scott Peterson that he's innocent, then defend Steven Wayne Todd and Donald Glenn Pearce, too. In fact, by that standard, leave them out of the equation. Same for the profane transients in the park, or any Satanist in Modesto.
If someone is disgruntled Scott Peterson was convicted purely on circumstantial evidence, then you must believe with what we know, no one should have been prosecuted, and Laci's murder should have remained unsolved. Comparing circumstances among possible suspects, however, Scott Peterson is most culpable.
It's not that hard to figure out how he killed her. There's no blood at the last place where Laci was seen [her home], so he overpowered her and she was killed without blood loss. The first thing that comes to my mind is strangulation, but maybe she was poisoned. Scott had scratches on his knuckles when he spoke with police. He claimed it was related to work, but it could just as easily have been injuries from Laci fighting back. She had broken ribs, but we don't know if that happened before or after death. Maybe it happened when Scott murdered her. She was duct taped all over in a way that clearly suggests that someone wanted to be sure that the baby stayed attached to Laci. Who would bother to do that except Scott?
Laci's family said that there's no way that Scott would have bought a boat and she kept quiet. Someone near Scott's warehouse claims that Laci used a bathroom at the warehouse. Where in the warehouse is the bathroom? How often did Scott tell people that the lights didn't work?
Fair trial? Didn't it last six or seven months? Were the entire six months unfair, or just one or two points?
Fair trial in terms of the jury, in terms of Richele Nice and juror 8 threatening the original Foreman, number 8 also cried about the first juror dismissed, even though the judge admitted later he shouldn't have been dismissed for fake news by the media.
Richele Nice? No way.
There was no claim, it's a fact in terms of seeing her at the warehouse, unless you would like to discredit every witness.
Oh...and if the absence of forensic evidence satisfies defenders of Scott Peterson that he's innocent, then defend Steven Wayne Todd and Donald Glenn Pearce, too. In fact, by that standard, leave them out of the equation. Same for the profane transients in the park, or any Satanist in Modesto.
If someone is disgruntled Scott Peterson was convicted purely on circumstantial evidence, then you must believe with what we know, no one should have been prosecuted, and Laci's murder should have remained unsolved. Comparing circumstances among possible suspects, however, Scott Peterson is most culpable.
That's the problem with totally discrediting circumstantial evidence, although there are people like I said earlier that believed Casey Anthony is innocent, that was also mostly circumstantial, except for the fact Caylee was missing for 30 days.
I believe its fine to say Scott Peterson is the killer and deserves to be in prison, but I think it's also fine to question how the jury got there. So many things can happen in the course of the investigation, and the trial, it's fun to disect those reasons why this or that.
Pretty unbelievable that a man with a missing wife had no interest in a tip about a sighting.
Pretty unbelievable that a man who insisted he wanted everyone focused on finding his wife and unborn child was more focused on the porn channels he ordered after she went missing.
On Friday, the police say it was spin by Geragos and that another officer had O'Donnell in his notes, but the day before, when Brocchini testified, the media called the police station and received no comment to the question what happened to his notes. It some time to figure out how to get their stories straight.
Not every time the police do not answer a media inquiry immediately amounts to a conspiracy. They are a busy agency. "No comment" may just mean the point of contact didn't have permission to respond or needed to refer the question to their superior. Maybe it was information that was only subject to trial testimony, and they didn't want it being misconstrued by the media (as if the media would ever do such a thing [all sarcasm intended]).
With the volume and consistency of Scott's lies, I wish he would have submitted to a polygraph, even if done by an independent examiner hired by the Defense.
Police don't need to interview people who saw a woman wearing black pants because their victim was wearing tan pants.
On the day that Laci went missing she was said to have been in black pants and a white shirt. The police should have interviewed all witnesses who saw a pregnant woman walking a golden retriever who looked like Laci near her home on the day that she disappeared. Even better if the outfit she was wearing was black pants and a white shirt because at that point in time that was believed to be what she was wearing on that day. They didn't know that she would be found wearing tan pants four months later when her body was found.
Oh...and if the absence of forensic evidence satisfies defenders of Scott Peterson that he's innocent, then defend Steven Wayne Todd and Donald Glenn Pearce, too. In fact, by that standard, leave them out of the equation. Same for the profane transients in the park, or any Satanist in Modesto.
If someone is disgruntled Scott Peterson was convicted purely on circumstantial evidence, then you must believe with what we know, no one should have been prosecuted, and Laci's murder should have remained unsolved. Comparing circumstances among possible suspects, however, Scott Peterson is most culpable.
Did they investigate any other suspects other then Scott Peterson in Laci's murder? I think that everyone knows that the answer is no.
Status:
"I don't understand. But I don't care, so it works out."
(set 2 days ago)
35,585 posts, read 17,927,273 times
Reputation: 50620
I don't know what the truth is here.
Mainly, I'm absolutely amazed at the public hate for this man, with thin evidence.
So there was that pig farmer in Canada who killed at least 6 women and fed their remains to his pigs. Horrific, horrific guy. No doubt whatsoever that he did it.
Can ANYONE name this guy, without googling this case? Probably not.
Why doesn't the public hate this pig farmer more than Scott Peterson? The pig farmer, clearly murdered at least 6 women and no one disputes that.
I'm really truly curious. Why, when a case is blatantly obvious who did the murder, is the public outrage so lessened? And where the murderer tortured the victim for days/weeks/months before killing them? They are quickly forgotten.
Why the anger at Scott Peterson, where it's obvious Laci wasn't tortured AT ALL, and it's not clear that he murdered her for anyone who can think logically and understands the details?
I'm honestly curious. Why has this case garnered such hate?
I'm going to answer this, with my opinion. It's because the public doesn't know. That's what causes this passionate venom.
In cases where the public knows for sure, they just look away and shake their heads and move on. In cases where a specific population in the public wants to convince others that they are right, that the defendant is a murderer, and there is real logical doubt on the other side, is where this rage occurs with the people who want to insist on the guilt of the person in question. Those who have guessed the person is guilty want to insist that others believe their hypotheses.
Did they investigate any other suspects other then Scott Peterson in Laci's murder? I think that everyone knows that the answer is no.
If what you mean by "investigate" is pursue other suspects, well, of course not, because their investigation of any other leads, including the burglars, did not produce suspects. They investigated Todd and Pearce as suspects of a burglary but did not find anything to tie them to abduction or murder.
Scott was the focus of their investigation because he was the last person known to have seen the victim, had motive, and lied incessantly about golfing vs. fishing and having a perfect marriage. Scott was not a credible loving husband of a missing wife. The police didn't make him a killer. He did that himself.
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.
