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.
It IS concerning, that he told Amber his wife was dead. That's concerning. Among other pieces of concerning evidence in this case.
But you aren't left with guilty beyond reasonable doubt, when you stack up all the concerning evidence. You're left with "yeah it's pretty likely he's guilty".
The reason he told Amber he was in Europe and the crowds were crazy is because she would obviously have been able to hear crowd noise during this call and he had to explain it. He wasn't about to say he was at a vigil for his missing wife. So, again, evidence of trying to hide who he was from his mistress.
I actually am left with guilty beyond reasonable doubt. I didn't always think this, I arrived here.
Hiding the girlfriend is unrelated to the evidence of murder other than some critical testimony that she provided. She felt rather special and the media made a fuss about her, however, regarding trial evidence, it was her testimony and audio evidence rather than her existence that led to conviction.
No one proved in court, or provided as evidence, that having a girlfriend was evidence of murder.
Status:
"I don't understand. But I don't care, so it works out."
(set 12 days ago)
35,640 posts, read 17,994,810 times
Reputation: 50680
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lieneke
I actually am left with guilty beyond reasonable doubt. I didn't always think this, I arrived here.
Hiding the girlfriend is unrelated to the evidence of murder other than some critical testimony that she provided. She felt rather special and the media made a fuss about her, however, regarding trial evidence, it was her testimony and audio evidence rather than her existence that led to conviction.
No one proved in court, or provided as evidence, that having a girlfriend was evidence of murder.
How do you factor in how he got her 180 pound pregnant body over the side of the boat, weighted down, and why there wasn't any evidence at all of her death inside the house or anywhere else where Scott was? If you can't explain either of those things, that's reasonable doubt.
How do you factor in how he got her body over the side of the boat, and why there wasn't any evidence at all of her death inside the house or anywhere else where Scott was? If you can't explain either of those things, that's reasonable doubt.
Body over the edge of the boat is easy. Attach the concrete anchors that he made in his warehouse to her limbs and head, perhaps wrap her in the chicken wire he had at the warehouse, push the anchors over the side of the boat and out pops the body - down to the bottom of ocean for the sturgeon bottom feeders. Isn't that the type of fish he was trying to catch that day - sturgeon? Too bad he used the wrong lures to make it a convincing story.
Alternatively, he could have attached the concrete anchors to her body, put the anchors in the boat and let her body drag in the water until he was in the middle of the shipping channel. Then he tossed the anchors and she sank to the bottom of the ocean. This is obviously not something that an unknown jewellery thief would do.
Unusual circumstances at the house were the hot tub was left on all night, tarps in the shed were soaked with gasoline (destroys DNA), his truck was backed up in the driveway, the umbrellas were taken his warehouse, his dog was on leash in the middle of the road in front of the house.
Soft kill typically does not leave evidence. Strangulation of a pregnant woman might leave bodily fluids as evidence, but that's easy to wash - like the mop that was left by the door. Nancy Cooper, NC, was murdered at home by her husband. There was no evidence of the murder at the home. She lived there so her DNA was everywhere. It was spousal homicide soft kill strangulation at home - no evidence of stranger murder.
There is the small matter that the fetus might have been partially expelled at the time of death (see: Shannan Watts), but that was remedied with ample rounds of duct tape around Laci's torso. Someone wanted to keep that baby inside!
Body over the edge of the boat is easy. Attach the concrete anchors that he made in his warehouse to her limbs and head, perhaps wrap her in the chicken wire he had at the warehouse, push the anchors over the side of the boat and out pops the body - down to the bottom of ocean for the sturgeon bottom feeders. Isn't that the type of fish he was trying to catch that day - sturgeon? Too bad he used the wrong lures to make it a convincing story.
Alternatively, he could have attached the concrete anchors to her body, put the anchors in the boat and let her body drag in the water until he was in the middle of the shipping channel. Then he tossed the anchors and she sank to the bottom of the ocean. This is obviously not something that an unknown jewellery thief would do.
Unusual circumstances at the house were the hot tub was left on all night, tarps in the shed were soaked with gasoline (destroys DNA), his truck was backed up in the driveway, the umbrellas were taken his warehouse, his dog was on leash in the middle of the road in front of the house.
Soft kill typically does not leave evidence. Strangulation of a pregnant woman might leave bodily fluids as evidence, but that's easy to wash - like the mop that was left by the door. Nancy Cooper, NC, was murdered at home by her husband. There was no evidence of the murder at the home. She lived there so her DNA was everywhere. It was spousal homicide soft kill strangulation at home - no evidence of stranger murder.
I think we are both familiar enough with the facts of the case to avoid rabbit holes like "he's a cad, doesn't mean he murdered his wife" and "there was no evidence for the Supreme Court to uphold in August 2020."
Anyone who lived it knows that it started with a missing pregnant woman who was walking her dog at the steep incline park and who did not come home. As a short woman who was told that it was unlikely she would ever become pregnant, there were health iissues associated with the pregnancy. Naturally, everyone was concerned and there were endless searches at the park. Laci's mother was looking in garbage cans for her daughter.
At some point, the dots weren't connecting. I'm not sure whether it was Scott looking to sell Laci's vehicle and the family home within a short time after her disappearance, or his callous disregard for potential information from/about her, but at some point I started to wonder whether Scott had something to do with Laci's disappearance.
By the time the trial evidence was published, I had no doubt.
I think we are both familiar enough with the facts of the case to avoid rabbit holes like "he's a cad, doesn't mean he murdered his wife" and "there was no evidence for the Supreme Court to uphold in August 2020."
Anyone who lived it knows that it started with a missing pregnant woman who was walking her dog at the steep incline park and who did not come home. As a short woman who was told that it was unlikely she would ever become pregnant, there were health iissues associated with the pregnancy. Naturally, everyone was concerned and there were endless searches at the park. Laci's mother was looking in garbage cans for her daughter.
At some point, the dots weren't connecting. I'm not sure whether it was Scott looking to sell Laci's vehicle and the family home within a short time after her disappearance, or his callous disregard for potential information from/about her, but at some point I started to wonder whether Scott had something to do with Laci's disappearance.
By the time the trial evidence was published, I had no doubt.
Interesting. I wasn't paying close attention to the case because I'd rather wait and learn about true crime when all the info is in and there's a book or something. As I know and mentioned above, newspaper accounts are slanted and do not provide all the information.
But I immediately thought Scott Peterson was guilty because it almost always is the husband in these deals where the wife is "missing". Then when the girlfriend turned up, I just sort of thought "Oh, same old story, different place, different faces. Still not as interesting as Helle Crafts." (The woodchipper murder.)
It was only after I listened to the full story on the podcast, long after he was in prison, that I thought "Huh, very interesting, he really wasn't convicted on the basis of hard evidence." I'd assumed he was.
Status:
"I don't understand. But I don't care, so it works out."
(set 12 days ago)
35,640 posts, read 17,994,810 times
Reputation: 50680
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mightyqueen801
Interesting. I wasn't paying close attention to the case because I'd rather wait and learn about true crime when all the info is in and there's a book or something. As I know and mentioned above, newspaper accounts are slanted and do not provide all the information.
But I immediately thought Scott Peterson was guilty because it almost always is the husband in these deals where the wife is "missing". Then when the girlfriend turned up, I just sort of thought "Oh, same old story, different place, different faces. Still not as interesting as Helle Crafts." (The woodchipper murder.)
It was only after I listened to the full story on the podcast, long after he was in prison, that I thought "Huh, very interesting, he really wasn't convicted on the basis of hard evidence." I'd assumed he was.
You're right, he wasn't. He was immediately dismissed as guilty, and the case went to the stage where LE had decided he was guilty, and proceeded that way. And the DA decided he was guilty, and worked to build the case.
I don't know whether he is or not, but this is a textbook case of police tunnel vision. On top of that, the most reliable witness that saw Laci walking on Christmas eve, someone who actually KNEW her and reported seeing her walking the dog, was hypnotized by the investigators in an effort to get more info out of her. Because she'd been hypnotized, she was no longer able to testify at trial. For some legal reason. Her witness account was compelling.
In a notable twist during trial, Ron Grantski (Laci's mother's husband) had been especially critical of Scott for fishing on Christmas Eve, as many had been. Who fishes on Christmas Eve he asked?? That's a family day. He should have been with his family. On the stand, Ron Grantski was asked, "where were you on Christmas Eve? "Fishing", he said. The whole story is full of stuff like that. You think one thing, people say one thing, and it turns out they're hypocrites or wrong. Judgmental. He was guilty or murder, for being a slick jerk.
In a notable twist during trial, Ron Grantski (Laci's mother's husband) had been especially critical of Scott for fishing on Christmas Eve, as many had been. Who fishes on Christmas Eve he asked?? That's a family day. He should have been with his family. On the stand, Ron Grantski was asked, "where were you on Christmas Eve? "Fishing", he said. The whole story is full of stuff like that. You think one thing, people say one thing, and it turns out they're hypocrites or wrong. Judgmental.
That needs to be put in context. (And frankly, it's bizarre to think that he--or anyone, for that matter--would head off on an HOURS LONG fishing trip on Christmas Eve, knowing that he and his wife had later plans with their family, but that's just IMO.)
The questions began mounting for Grantski – an avid fisherman who keeps a pole in his car – after Peterson said he left at 9:30 a.m. to go fishing in Berkeley the day his wife disappeared.
"I said, ‘9:30? That’s when I come home when I go,’" Grantski testified, recounting a conversation with Peterson Christmas Eve 2002 as a search was under way for his wife. "And he just turned around and walked away."
Status:
"I don't understand. But I don't care, so it works out."
(set 12 days ago)
35,640 posts, read 17,994,810 times
Reputation: 50680
Quote:
Originally Posted by CA4Now
That needs to be put in context. (And frankly, it's bizarre to think that he--or anyone, for that matter--would head off on an HOURS LONG fishing trip on Christmas Eve, knowing that he and his wife had later plans with their family, but that's just IMO.)
The questions began mounting for Grantski – an avid fisherman who keeps a pole in his car – after Peterson said he left at 9:30 a.m. to go fishing in Berkeley the day his wife disappeared.
"I said, ‘9:30? That’s when I come home when I go,’" Grantski testified, recounting a conversation with Peterson Christmas Eve 2002 as a search was under way for his wife. "And he just turned around and walked away."
No one would suggest that Peterson was an avid fisherman, or really, even had any idea what he was doing.
I would think it was VERY common, actually, for men to wander off and spend the day of Christmas Eve away from family enjoying a day off doing a hobby. Maybe I see it that way because that's exactly what my husband would have done, it just doesn't seem strange to me. Scott was back in plenty of time for their evening event.
BTW - there was no love lost between Ron Grantski and Scott Peterson. Or, if accounts are to be believed, between Laci and Ron. Laci would sometimes ask whether Ron was going to be at family events, and then make the decision whether to decline. Also, Ron was the only person in the world Laci's dog would growl at. So it's not terribly surprising that Scott walked away when Ron was clearly challenging his story of going fishing. He just didn't like the guy.
No one would suggest that Peterson was an avid fisherman, or really, even had any idea what he was doing.
Whether he was an "avid fisherman" or not has nothing to do with anything. In the clip, it was stated somewhere in the first 20 minutes that he was going fishing 90 miles away.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClaraC
I would think it was VERY common, actually, for men to wander off and spend the day of Christmas Eve away from family enjoying a day off doing a hobby. Maybe I see it that way because that's exactly what my husband would have done, it just doesn't seem strange to me.
It seems fairly clear that Peterson did not "wander off."
And would your husband have knowingly done that if you were 8 months pregnant with your first child and had plans for the late afternoon on Christmas Eve?
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.
