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.
If she actually DID notice the lights flicking on in the afternoon, why would Scott lie about doing it? Laci was long gone by then, she certainly didn't do it, and if Scott did do it, that's just further evidence that he's living a normal life performing normal routine tasks and doesn't believe anything is amiss.
Some naysayers would say well yeah, he did it to act like everything was normal, like he hadn't just killed his wife - but then why would he lie and say he didn't do it? He'd say yes, I did, it was Christmas eve and I was in a jolly festive mood.
It makes no sense that someone turned them on, other than Scott. And it makes no sense that Scott would state he didn't do it, if he did.
Don't know what to make of it. I suspect the neighbor is wrong, and Laci did it in the morning.
I wonder if he was in the shed getting rid of some evidence that he had stashed out there and accidentally turned on the light. Either thought it was the switch to the light in the shed, or brushed against it accidentally.
That's the only reason I can think he would lie. If he had time to think about it, he'd have said yeah I was out there looking for decorations or something. But if he had been out there to hide something, that would explain the knee-jerk reaction to deny being anywhere close to that shed.
I fell asleep twenty minutes in.
I'm guessing the ending is the same ... Scott deservedly on death row.
Yeah, no changes in the outcome.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LillyLillyLilly
LOL I saw a blurb of Geragos on that show with gray hair now. Is he still maintaining that he is certain that Scott is innocent?
I don't know that Geragos every really thought Peterson was innocent of this. A lawyer, especially one that demands a million dollars to take a case, doesn't care about that. He's in it to win it. It was a little sweet to watch him lose, though. He's a pompous imo.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lieneke
I've enjoyed seeing all the players fifteen years later.
There was a second woman, Dempewolf, who gave birth in January and also walked a dog in that park. It wasn't a retriever but was a mid-sized brown dog.
If she actually DID notice the lights flicking on in the afternoon, why would Scott lie about doing it? Laci was long gone by then, she certainly didn't do it, and if Scott did do it, that's just further evidence that he's living a normal life performing normal routine tasks and doesn't believe anything is amiss.
Some naysayers would say well yeah, he did it to act like everything was normal, like he hadn't just killed his wife - but then why would he lie and say he didn't do it? He'd say yes, I did, it was Christmas eve and I was in a jolly festive mood.
It makes no sense that someone turned them on, other than Scott. And it makes no sense that Scott would state he didn't do it, if he did.
Don't know what to make of it. I suspect the neighbor is wrong, and Laci did it in the morning.
I know. If he turned them on out of habit, then lied so he wouldn't give the impression of not being concerned about Laci...is the only thing I can think of, but that he admitted to doing things he normally would do upon returning home, like showering and eating.
I wonder if he was in the shed getting rid of some evidence that he had stashed out there and accidentally turned on the light.
Couldn't be the tarp...though that was suspicious. Investigators saw the canvas tarp in the back of his truck on the evening of the 24th. Next day, it was in the shed under a leaf blower which leaked gasoline on it. I wonder if the leaf blower had an accidental vs. intentional leak.
There was a second woman, Dempewolf, who gave birth in January and also walked a dog in that park. It wasn't a retriever but was a mid-sized brown dog.
That's a fair point. It would have been difficult. My problem is that their entire scenario about the anchors, and just about everything else for that matter, is nothing but speculation. It's like the state is saying "Just trust us, there is evidence out there, we just couldn't find it and show it you".
They used the dog sniffing her at the marina as evidence, this particular dog failed 66% of the time, the other dog they took had no reaction.
The jury was told if the dog was to be believed, then Scott was a murderer, was the jury told about the dogs failure rate?
I don't know that Geragos every really thought Peterson was innocent of this. A lawyer, especially one that demands a million dollars to take a case, doesn't care about that. He's in it to win it. It was a little sweet to watch him lose, though. He's a pompous imo.
Yeah, we're all gettin' older.
Geragos appeared on the Larry King show to presumably present the alternative view to Nancy Grace. I'm of the opinion that the Peterson family assumed that Geragos actually believed what he was saying, but as a TV celebrity he was also unable to successfully defend Peterson even though the talking heads debated each piece of evidence in isolation as opposed to trial format where the totality of evidence is evaluated.
I'm curious about the family's theory. Do they believe that Laci was wearing black pants, she walked the dog to the park, gypsies in a van abducted her, they forced her to change into the pants that she wore the day before she was abducted, and then borrowed a boat to put her and the baby at the bottom of the ocean ... and the motive was cult satanism?
"Mom, Scott doesn't like to do this. I've asked him to feel my stomach when the baby kicks and he never wants to touch my stomach."
What Laci told her mom the last time they saw each other.
I can't really accept that Laci did not know that something was wrong in her relationship with Scott. I think a pregnant woman is hyper sensitive about the baby and would have some intuition about who was safe to be with. It's good that she expressed the concern to her mom, and truly unfortunate that she was unable to remove herself from the marriage. She had plenty of warning signs, such as his girlfriend when he was completing his studies, and the fact that he didn't include her in his Christmas invitations. I'm sure she believed that everything would be fine after the baby was born, and that he was just having normal difficulties adjusting to the change, but there must have been a sense that the marriage may not last.
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.
imo. 
