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.
In a legal sense, there is no difference. If you're found not guilty, you're legally innocent.
Didn't have a crime scene? They had several crime scenes. If we are to believe the prosecution's theory, the house, Scott's truck, the warehouse, the boat, and the marina were all crime scenes. And yet, they were unable to find one single piece of evidence at any of these scenes to indicate that Scott killed Laci.
Again I'll ask, what is this abundance of evidence? Having an affair and lying about it?
If you read my earlier post, you'll see my explanation on the current research and the location of the bodies.
Yes, Scott told Amber that he "lost his wife" well prior to her disappearance. And sure, one could argue, as the prosecution did, that this statement reveals a future plan to kill Laci. But wouldn't it make him look better in the eyes of Amber for him to claim he was widowed rather than divorced? And how much weight does that argument have in the total absence of any evidence that he actually killed her?
It is the total lack of evidence against Scott that serves as clear evidence that someone else committed the crime.
Not true. It just means there wasn't enough evidence to PROVE you did it. It doesn't mean you didn't do it.
You weren't in the courtroom to hear all of the testimony. Those 12 jurors were. And they felt there was enough evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, to convict him.
Last edited by Ibginnie; 10-22-2014 at 07:33 AM..
Reason: off topic
There is only a lack of PHYSICAL evidence, but circumstantial evidence is still evidence. 1 or 2 pieces of circumstantial evidence may not convince a jury. Also, it's already pointed out be myself and others that it's hard to get physical evidence in a case like this. She was in the bay for months so there wouldn't have been much evidence there. He didn't pay somebody else to do it so weren't any large bank transactions for the police to investigate. It's not like there was a huge pool of blood in the house showing that she had been injured in the house. These 2 were married and their DNA and fingerprints would be all over the house, cars, and anything else the owned together.
It's no more difficult to get physical evidence in a "case like this", whatever that means. Consider what the prosecution is contending: Scott killed Laci in the home somehow, put her in his truck, drove her to the warehouse, transferred her to the boat, drove 90 miles to the Bay, put the boat in, weighed her down with some homemade anchors and dropped her overboard. Yet, no where do they find a single drop of blood, tissue, hair, or any bodily fluid to indicate any of this actually happened. There was no evidence of any clean up. Not one single witness to say he was doing anything suspicious. This was in the middle of the day, with his neighbors out and about, people at the marina, etc. Oh, and he was so cool and calm about the whole thing, he casually spent an hour at the warehouse handling emails and putting together a woodworking tool, presumably while his wife lay dead in the boat, waiting for disposal. You don't question the plausibility of this?
What is this evidence you keep referring to? They found the bodies in the Bay, where he always admitted to being. That is a serious piece of evidence, very incriminating, and needs to be explained. Beyond that, there is what?
Just read a quick synopsis on this case at Wikipedia and it seems that because he cheated on his wife he was a "bad guy" and because he was a "bad guy" they figured he's probably guilty of murder.
That's what i got out of it.
Also, why would Mark Geragos lose a case? He wins more cases than he loses i would imagine...why does he lose this one? I'm sure he presented evidence that a clear minded person could say "hmmm, there's reasonable doubt" but somehow a lawyer who rarely loses, lost?
But he was a suspect immediately. He was the focus of the investigation from the beginning. LE likes to play word games by calling people "persons of interest", but when your alibi is broadcast on the news with LE asking the public to help them "verify it", it's because you're a suspect. And this was after he had given them his launch receipt and credit card receipt proving where he had been.
His family claimed his hair color was changed as a result of using a chlorinated pool. True or not, he had good reason to want to change his appearance, as he was being hounded relentlessly by the media. Either way, it's hard to believe it was an earnest attempt to elude law enforcement. And here you mention another false implication by the media. "He was arrested just a few miles from the Mexican border" was a typical report. They neglected to mention that he was with his family who live in San Diego, a city that borders Mexico. He never made any attempt to flee to Mexico or anywhere else.
I may need to refresh and go back and read your thread, but did you mention you only recently got into this case and didn't follow from beginning?
Regardless I followed this from the very beginning and is very vivid in my memory the way it unfolded. You say he was a suspect from the beginning, but I actually remember the DAYS following Lacis disappearance and Scott was not a suspect. I can actually visit my memory at this moment and remember the cop doing the press conference saying Scott was not a suspect and was cooperating with them for her search. However, yes he was being questioned like any spouse would in a disappearance. They were actually focusing on a slow driving car a neighbor saw, since Laci was "spotted"(later unconfirmed) doing her morning walk. Of course the media will ask about the spouse, and when they did Lacis family vouched for Scott, her mother saying he was a great husband and is very active in her search. However you rarely saw him. This of course was the very beginning.
I can actually revisit my memory at this moment and do recall Scott being arrested in San Diego with very blonde hair and ten grand in his possession. I actually remember his mugshot. Visiting family? Lol, sure. Scotts many talents was poor lieing, he could not tell a good lie to save his life. I remember cringing whenever he spoke on TV because I knew he would say something stupid. His family was very protective of him and occasionally said stupid things too.
EDIT: Found a timeline, don't know how to link;
April 14:The body of a woman and male fetus that washed ashore on Richmond, CA are found
April 18:Police in San Diego arrest Scott Peterson, who is found carrying a large amount of cash and his brothers passport.Attorney General Bill Lockyer says bodies found in Richmond are those of Laci Peterson and her unborn son.
When I read your original post I thought was good and every crime has two sides, but you may now be getting a little too ahead of yourself. The thing is after a famous case like this is done and gets revitalized there is just so much info out there that it can get confusing what really happened. However good luck on your quest to prove Scott innocent.
Last edited by laina1980; 10-21-2014 at 11:52 PM..
Amber Frey really woke up the case though. It was cool to see her turn her back on him since he was still after her when Laci disappeared. Usually the mistress stick by their lovers but not her, she was like no way.
It's no more difficult to get physical evidence in a "case like this", whatever that means. Consider what the prosecution is contending: Scott killed Laci in the home somehow, put her in his truck, drove her to the warehouse, transferred her to the boat, drove 90 miles to the Bay, put the boat in, weighed her down with some homemade anchors and dropped her overboard. Yet, no where do they find a single drop of blood, tissue, hair, or any bodily fluid to indicate any of this actually happened. There was no evidence of any clean up. Not one single witness to say he was doing anything suspicious. This was in the middle of the day, with his neighbors out and about, people at the marina, etc. Oh, and he was so cool and calm about the whole thing, he casually spent an hour at the warehouse handling emails and putting together a woodworking tool, presumably while his wife lay dead in the boat, waiting for disposal. You don't question the plausibility of this?
What is this evidence you keep referring to? They found the bodies in the Bay, where he always admitted to being. That is a serious piece of evidence, very incriminating, and needs to be explained. Beyond that, there is what?
Was it ever proven that Lacy was killed in the house? It would have been very easy for Scott to have gotten her to go someplace with him willingly and then killed her there. They were married after all. The lack of physical evidence in the house doesn't mean that he didn't do it. If she went with him willingly and was then killed someplace else, of course there would be no witness to Scott cleaning up his mess.
I don't question the plausibility of it because I don't think that Scott is right mentally. I'm not saying he's insane enough to avoid serving his sentence, but I don't believe he's right in the head. Just the very nature of this crime indicates that so I don't find it hard to believe that he did all of this without being at all afraid of being seen by the neighbors or anybody walking/driving by.
I do question if she was killed in the house or not. He could have killed her in any number of places and the cops might not even know about some of those places.
You want everybody to give you evidence that Scott Peterson is guilty, but you can't prove that he's innocent. You question the plausibility of everything, but you haven't provided one single shred of evidence that says, "Hey, there is no possible way that Scott Peterson killed his wife." Meanwhile, those of us that say he's guilty have a pretty big piece of evidence. A jury found him guilty and sentenced him to death. The rule of "Innocent until proven guilty" is only good for the accused. Now that he's been proven guilty, it's on him and his lawyers to prove his innocence.
You know this is the one part I kinda don't remember, the house. Like if they searched it. I thought Scott was trying to keep them out and did for a bit. I also vaguely remember(do not quote me on this at all) that there was something to do with the walls or carpet that were either new or cleaned, does anyone remember this?
I agree in some ways with what the OP is saying I think! But I have always believed him to be guilty. But I always said that I would not wanted to have been on that jury...I think a lot of what got him convicted was his arrogant self centered, all around sociopathic traits. I personally think the Casey Anthony case had tons more physical evidence and we see what happened there...IMO this is kind of the double standard in our society and justice system...Not saying Casey Anthony was an attractive female IMO it was just what should have been an open/shut case being anything but. In the end Scott is where he should be and Casey, god help us all we don't have a damn clue where that crazy bat is!!!
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.
