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.
What circumstantial evidence in this case do you consider strong? Obviously the bodies were found in the same ocean bay Scott had visited on the day Laci disappeared. That's certainly evidence, but given that this is a very large body of water and his alibi was broadcast nationwide within 48 hours of Laci's disappearance, it isn't as strong as it appears.
There was never more than one anchor made, period. Scott never said he went fishing for sturgeon. Scott has never been diagnosed as a psychopath. He did add the Playboy channel to his cable lineup, but I hardly see how that's evidence of murder. He sold Laci's car because the police had seized his truck and he needed to buy a new one for his job. All of this was covered earlier in the thread, but some posters insist on repeating the lies and misinformation they've heard from the media.
I read the book by Keith Ablow. He laid out why he thought Scott was a sociopath or psychopath. He made it clear that he never met Scott and this was based on watching the interviews on TV and with the police. And by anecdotal accounts of Scott's childhood.
Status:
"I don't understand. But I don't care, so it works out."
(set 7 days ago)
35,630 posts, read 17,968,125 times
Reputation: 50652
Quote:
Originally Posted by LillyLillyLilly
Which video? This is a loooonngg thread to go clicking on every link.
This one. You may have to go to YouTube if you can't watch it in this link - just google YouTube Snapped Video Scott Peterson. It's long, but IMHO, extremely fair. Lots of people with first hand knowledge of the case, not just a bunch of talking heads who don't know what they're talking about. Fairly depicts both sides of the case.
Agreed. Even at the beginning, this stuff was hard to explain away.
He took a shower, did his laundry, and ate a meal before he called Laci’s family to tell them that she was missing.
It's determined that he'd recently taken out a $250,000 life insurance policy on Laci.
It's found that he’d been carrying on an affair.
He told investigators that he had gone fishing the day Laci disappeared, but told his father in law that he was playing golf.
I could probably list 100 things under circumstantial evidence. This must have been the easiest murder case those detectives ever investigated. Scotts not a bright bulb....
The circumstantial evidence is strong, I agree. I think in the video upthread, the cement weight thing is kind of disproven - it appears to be a guess on the part of investigators.
Ok I've gotten to that point in the video. I see a lot of mess over a large area for him to have made just 1 anchor. But even if that's not proven, he did lie about what happened to the rest of the cement. He claimed he poured it in his driveway. Forensic analysis showed that the remaining weight did not match anything in the Peterson driveway. Why would he lie about what he did with the rest?
Maybe something contradicts that too? I'll continue watching.
This one. You may have to go to YouTube if you can't watch it in this link - just google YouTube Snapped Video Scott Peterson. It's long, but IMHO, extremely fair. Lots of people with first hand knowledge of the case, not just a bunch of talking heads who don't know what they're talking about. Fairly depicts both sides of the case.
Okay I finished and I don't think the coverage is that fair. There was a whole lot of commentary by 3 or 4 people working for the defense. A police officer talked for a few minutes about the investigation, but I don't remember anyone pro-prosecution speaking about the trial and what was or wasn't presented.
Sounds like we'll know in the next 6 months if the evidence that Garagos supposedly decided not to present during the trial is strong enough to get Scott a new trial. Geragos is supposed to be an excellent lawyer, so I'd be very surprised if he opted to not show any evidence that would exculpate Scott. That would not be prudent no matter how confident you are in your case.
Status:
"I don't understand. But I don't care, so it works out."
(set 7 days ago)
35,630 posts, read 17,968,125 times
Reputation: 50652
Quote:
Originally Posted by LillyLillyLilly
Okay I finished and I don't think the coverage is that fair. There was a whole lot of commentary by 3 or 4 people working for the defense. A police officer talked for a few minutes about the investigation, but I don't remember anyone pro-prosecution speaking about the trial and what was or wasn't presented.
Sounds like we'll know in the next 6 months if the evidence that Garagos supposedly decided not to present during the trial is strong enough to get Scott a new trial. Geragos is supposed to be an excellent lawyer, so I'd be very surprised if he opted to not show any evidence that would exculpate Scott. That would not be prudent no matter how confident you are in your case.
As I understood it, until Amber's testimony and playing the phone tapes, everyone thought the case was won. I think Geragos was a little blind sided when it shifted, which it did in a huge way.
Some of the stuff early on almost had a comic tone to it. Sharon Rocha's boyfriend Ron Grantski was testifying, and he said something about what kind of married man fishes on Christmas eve? That's just not even believable. And then Geragos asked Ron what he was doing on Christmas Eve, and it was fishing. Almost comic.
It seems once Geragos found the pawn ticket for the Croton Watch, he felt sure he could not only prove Peterson not guilty, but point the clear finger at the guilty party - those people in the tan van.
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.
