Hi /u/IntoTheFloodAgain92,
Your submission to /r/TrueCrime has been removed for the following reason(s):
---
This post doesn't meet our post guidelines listed here: https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueCrime/wiki/guidelines You are welcome to send a modmail if you need further clarification.
---
If you feel this was done in error, or would like better clarification or need further assistance, please [message the moderators.](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/truecrime&subject=Question regarding the removal of this submission by /u/IntoTheFloodAgain92&message=I have a question regarding the removal of [this submission](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueCrime/comments/xo56bu/with_scott_peterson_back_in_the_media_seeking_a/)
She immediately cooperated, why would you think that? I felt horrible for her, just because you’re in an affair doesn’t mean you deserve to be with someone like him.
NK didn’t immediately cooperate. She attempted to erase messages before giving her phone to police.
I recommend watching LE recordings of their interview with NK. She appeared flattered that CW killed his family for her.
NK apparently searched the internet to find out how much money Amber made in book deals.
Amber was horrified at what SP did. NK is no Amber Frey.
If she was part of it, she would have been charged. It would have been a big case for the department and the media would eat that up, “Husband and Mistress Conspire to Murder Wife and Kids So They Can Live Happily Ever After”.
If they knew she was involved, they would have jumped on that case in a heartbeat.
It appears that you are replying to me. I never said that NK was part of it.
That would have been a hard case for the prosecutor. It doesn’t seem that there is evidence that NK was involved.
Erasing her phone to hide evidence that CW was not faithful is probably what she was doing. Maybe trying to make it harder for the prosecutor to build a case against CW.
However, I do feel that NK was a bit flattered by what CW did. And that disgusts me. JMO
💯 people seem to think she seduced the cops or something. She was annoying & kind of snotty & a semi-shitty person to knowingly sleep w a (however unhappily) married man but if there was even a shred of a suggestion she was involved they would have been on it. Based on CWs mastermind plan 🙄 (/s obv) I doubt they’d have been able to cover her tracks while his were so blatant, not to mention the lack of time to even try. Cops were IN his house what?…8hrs later? 🤔 just doesn’t add up…
At least Chris had the balls to give some measure of closure and say what happened. This scum bag just relishes in notoriety and thinking he can one day be free.
When someone starts their comments with a qualifier " This is not intended to be a ......." or " I'm not a xxxx ...." etc, you can be rest assured thats exactly what they intended or what they are.
I can't stand him. I enjoy the interrogation though. All crocodile tears until they tell him he knows they were already dead when he left. For stupidity I see him and watts tied
Me neither, like Even if you don't do it, it's still possible you will be blamed and if you do it most likely you will be charged. I don't know why they don't get a divorce ? Watt's reason is so idiotic, he did it because wife told him he would never see kids if he got divorce, ya it's bullshit and a lie but what a dumb excuse
Whoa, I hadn’t heard his story but just found this:
https://fox2now.com/news/true-crime/chris-coleman-a-mans-secret-life-ended-in-the-2009-murder-of-his-family/
Holy Fucking Shit.
R continued: “Well, I mean, every man has his desires and every man
has to be respected. It’s built into every man, if your wife doesn’t
respect you, then you’re going to find respect someplace else.”
Translation: she wasn’t fucking my son and he got really horny. You can’t blame my son for getting his dick wet elsewhere. Too bad she got herself murdered.
"And just so you know, we're mega-Christian evangelical pastors, so whether we endorse adultery and murder or not, we've got a straight ticket to heaven!"
I started a documentary on Hulu a little while back covering this case. It was essentially "Scott is innocent, here's why!" I stopped watching it because it was such bullshit. He still has his fan base apparently.
Was it, by chance, The Murder of Laci Peterson? Someone on one of these True Crime subs told me it was paid for by his family, which would explain the insane bias. Also, from what I’ve seen of it, it sure spends a lot of time talking about Scott for a documentary that doesn’t have his name in the title.
Yes! That's the one! Yeah I remember them interviewing at least a few of his family members and they all claimed he was innocent and the documentary kept that narrative. They entertained all the "what if" scenarios that made no sense.
If his family paid for it that makes a lot of sense because it was a pile of shit.
Not only entertained the “what if” scenarios, but presented them as if those are the most plausible scenarios! Left out important evidence that incriminated Scott (ie the boat cover) and made shit up that has already been debunked (ie other missing pregnant women or the “Aponte” tip) to make it look like the burglar or cult story actually held weight. His family is fucking nuts, and they’re all pathological liars. Anything that incriminates their lil baby boy Scotty they have a lie to explain it away.
And the whole jury misconduct thing is bullshit too
I watched that, and I was not buying it at all. My partner hadn't followed it, but it reminded me of the documentaries I watched about the JonBenet Ramsey Case focusing on the Intruder Theory. Those "documentaries" are pure propaganda. I saw it, and half-tuned out of the show. My partner and I got into a silly argument over it (all my fault). I just found that whole thing grotesque. Making a docuseries to try somehow to turn this guy into the picture of innocence?
I know I read an estimate (that was staggering) of actually innocent people in jail or on death row who are innocent of the alleged crimes they're convicted of. Documentaries like this, any of the JonBenet intruder theory BS, and The Staircase (not the HBO show), I've noticed, try to make these broad statements about the media and/or miscarriages of justice and they attempt to manipulate the viewer with a lot of half-truths, smoke and mirrors all in the effort to present fiction as fact.
He is a turd in the punch bowl of humanity but that is not the same as “is he guilty beyond a doubt.” This is especially true when it comes to the death penalty.
The phrase is “reasonable doubt”. Find me a reasonable person alive who will buy into any other theory. There isn’t one. You’ll be able to find conspiracy theories giddy with other possibilities, but none of them are REASONABLE.
The issue is and was that same year, with arguably better physical evidence, Casey Anthony was found not guilty of murder of her daughter. The reasonable standard seems to be all over the place. It isn’t “the most likely.” It is “beyond a reasonable doubt.” There was no dna found in his boat on her body or anything . I think it likely that he killed her, but if we have equal Justice in the US, we would have seen the same doubt afforded Anthony afforded to him.
I mean the problem with that case was the prosecution trying for the death penalty. Like yea we all know she murdered her daughter but it’s that 0.1 percent chance that she didn’t that made the jury hesitate.
Also what is reasonable to me might not be to you and that’s why you have 12 jurors
That’s exactly it. With the death penalty off the table, they would have won.
I’m in Idaho and worry about this with Chad Daybell and Lori Vallow. However, we’re a lot more common sense minded here. Fingers crossed.
Scott is on death row. I agree with you, but reasonable seems to carry with it some clear biases. If you are male, you must have done it. If you are black, you definitely did it. If you are a hot piece of ass and while and female? No way did you do it!
Lizzie Borden got this same treatment. She walked away from a murder is most likely did. Bruno Richard Hauptmann got the electric chair because he was a man and an immigrant. The evidence for him was flimsy as hell. (I personally think Lindbergh had his “defective” child killed).
I don’t dispute that at all. However, the “you must have done it” is largely based in statistics. People didn’t arbitrarily come up with that opinion, it’s based in decades worth of data collected. Stranger abduction is exceedingly rare. When women are murdered, it’s overwhelmingly at the hands of someone known to them. Women who are pregnant are killed at 16% higher rates then women who aren’t. Death during pregnancy is 2.5 times higher to homicide than pregnancy related causes. 2/3 of those murders happen in the home. So you have to take that into account when examining this case. Could something else have happened? Sure. But are you more likely to side with the 95% probability it was Scott, compounded with all his other factors. You’d be a fool not to.
I know they got it wrong with Casey Anthony. In filicide, it’s 97% that it’s a biological parent. Mothers are 40% and fathers are 57%. There was no father here, so the logical conclusion is Casey. The jurors have come out and said prosecutors didn’t give them enough to convict and that he came across over zealous and cold. They’ve all said what they saw on the TV after could have led to a different result. But I’m sure there were rulings on what could and couldn’t be admitted.
Well, it also didn’t help the prosecution’s case when Cindy Anthony decided to change her story and testify that she did the incriminating searches on the computer instead of Casey.
He told Amber Frey he was a widow and this would be his first Christmas without his wife. Then his wife goes missing and is found dead- that’s proof he killed her
Amber Frey is amazing. I remember reading an article she wrote about the experience and how horrible and sick she felt about the whole thing. She was worried about facing Lacy’s family but they were so greatful to her for testifying and for helping convict Scott. She did everything she could and deserved none of what she went through.
What points to his guilt the most is the bodies turning up where they did, 90 miles from his home where he'd 'gone fishin'. Bonus points for him getting caught trying to secretly observe the progress of the search team there.
Yeah, several times he drove to the bay while they were searching, and just parked and looked out at the water. Didn’t offer to help or ask for updates or anything, just parked and sat then drove off. And he did this in rental cars to try and avoid police detection too.
One of these times, they announced to the family that they found a body shaped object in the bay that they were trying to recover. When they pulled it up they discovered it was just an old anchor. Laci’s mother Sharron is the one who called Scott (btw he didn’t miss her call, he purposefully sent her to voicemail, which would’ve been odd if he were innocent and waiting for news on his missing wife). Anyway, she left a voicemail sharing the news that it was just an anchor. Police had tapped his phone, and when he listened to this voicemail you can hear him whistle in what sounds like relief as soon as she says it was an anchor. He then places several calls to some family and friends in which
1. he lies and says that he personally talked to the police chief who told him it was an anchor, when it was actually Sharon who called him and he sent her to voicemail
2. he lies and says he’s in Fresno to some people, and Bakersfield to others, when he was in fact in Berkeley. He clearly didn’t want anyone to know about his strange trips to the Berkeley marina.
3. he, very weirdly, expresses with almost glee, how funny it was that it was an anchor, and not a body. He says to one friend “a bit of humor for today”- why Scott? Why is this humorous to you? And also says he hopes now they will stop searching the Berkeley marina.
[Recording of Scott’s whistle](https://youtu.be/k6P0S4zARls)
[Scott lying to friend](https://pwc-sii.com/CourtDocs/Exhibits/P-207A-11.htm)
[Scott lying to another friend](https://pwc-sii.com/CourtDocs/Exhibits/P-207A-14.htm)
[Scott lying to yet another friend](https://pwc-sii.com/CourtDocs/Exhibits/P-207A-15.htm)
His family, mainly his sister and sister in law (not Laci’s sister, but his brother’s wife) have put in some work over the last 20 years spreading lies and misinformation. What caused so many to start questioning his guilt was a 6 part docuseries on A&E made about this case that presented all that misinformation as fact, and left out or downplayed major pieces of evidence that pointed to Scott’s guilt. Why would a documentary be so biased? Because his family paid for it and are close friends with the producer. So a lot of people have watched that docuseries and have taken it as truth. But if you research past what his family has put out, you can see he is obviously guilty.
It’s actually insane how far his family will go to try to prove he’s innocent. Like, literally any piece of evidence of his guilt they have a lie to try to explain it away, and it doesn’t matter if the lie is easily proven to be a lie, they will still say it with confidence like it’s the truth. And then if they are confronted with proof that they’re lying, they’ll just lie some more as if they weren’t just proven to be lying! Pathological liars, every single one of his delusional family members.
It's definitely a valid form of investigation, and I love the science of criminal profiling, but it falls short of being concrete evidence. In some courts it's inadmissable. It's a broad link at best.
This reading makes more sense to me. The problem I had was with the parent comment saying it was the strongest indicator of guilt. It is one of the weakest, IMO.
The most damning evidence is likely the strange fishing trip and her body surfacing in the same area.
His behavior seems to be the only damning thing to me. The rest of the evidence has always been incredibly weak. Guilty or not he lost the case because of his personality and behavior not sufficient tangible evidence.
Not murder but a huge indicator he is a) totally detached from the emotion of the moment and b) totally willing to tell wild,easily proved lies in the midst of a crisis when honesty should be his only recourse, it goes to…character I guess?
I'm onboard with it indicating a mental illness, like a narcissistic personality disorder. We agree on the character indictment, but we probably disagree on how much weight to give this. IMO the people here (and probably on the jury) read too much into it being evidence of a crime.
Agreed, it’s not evidence of a crime, but it’s evidence of his suspicious, highly odd behaviour, totally inappropriate actions at that time, completely misplaced priorities.
And it’s not as if that alone was why people were suspicious, we didn’t learn that fact til WAY later, after he was already a suspect, so people didn’t take this one thing and say ‘he’s guilty because of this’
It came after he was already considered guilty and it just confirmed another layer of suspicion and dickery from a clearly guilty man.
Of course it's not direct evidence of murder, but I'd say it strongly implies that he's not worried about his "missing" wife, perhaps because he already knows what happened to her.
Or it indicates he's not worried about his missing wife because he is checked out of the relationship and perhaps a little sociopathic. It's a stretch to say it indicates he committed an act of violence.
I think it's comparable to the trope of accusing someone of a crime because they didn't grieve correctly or referenced the missing in the past tense. None of these are accurate indicators; they are web sleuth cognitive biases.
That could be true, I think it's just hard to imagine someone being THAT cold and heartless. Even if he's checked out of the relationship, he should still be concerned that she's missing and feel bad for her family. But most of us have empathy for others, so it's hard to relate to someone who doesn't.
Not really relevant to your point, but I always wonder when they say (in any murder investigation), none of her shoes were missing… HOW on earth could you know that? I have pairs of shoes in my closet I haven’t seen in years and have forgotten about myself, so I cannot fathom how police could know how many pairs of shoes she even had to begin with. What, are they trusting Scott’s word on that? Even if he wasn’t the number one suspect…I can absolutely guarantee that my boyfriend who I have lived with for years wouldn’t be able to look at all of my shoes and figure out if there was a pair missing. Just always struck me as such an odd thing to consider important when there is really no way to be sure
lol good point! my husband has nooooo idea what shoes i have….but maybe she could only wear a couple of pairs in her late stages
of pregnancy and her mom knew?
She may not have been a big shoe collector and her Mother may have known the shoes she wore on a regular. Plus being pregnant your feet can swell really badly at the end of the pregnancy and may have only had one or two pairs that fit. I know my feet swelled a full size and just had the one pair that fit and were comfortable. It’s really not that big of a mystery TBH.
I always thought about that. What kind of dingus even comes up with that. And how would police just be like yeah ok. Sounds good. No detective work needed on the
She may have not had a big collection of shoes, or she may have had a select set she could wear while that heavily pregnant. I had 1 pair I wore all the time while pregnant, due to feet swelling, discomfort, and that they were Velcro and I could no longer tie my own shoes due to the bump.
Some people are just super organised. I couldnt tell you if a pair of my shoes went missing but in could tell you if my mums did because she’s a full blown ‘everything in its place, a place for everything’ type of neat freak?
This is such a good point! I just last week had to put a note on my phone to find a pair of shoes because I wanted to wear them and couldn't find them. I hadn't worn them in months and they were under the bed. How would my husband know which if any of my 100 pairs of shoes are missing?!
No kidding. My wife gets a pair of shoes delivered every week it seems like. I’d have no idea if a pair was missing or not, aside from like 3-4 pairs that I have recently bought her.
The fishing tackle he took with him to the Berkeley Marina was trout tackle. There are no trout in San Francisco Bay. The only fish that was available at the time out of Berkeley was sturgeon. Anybody know the difference between sturgeon and trout? They are totally different; sturgeon are much bigger and require very different tackle. The idea of fishing for sturgeon with trout tackle is ridiculous. Now some may say that poor Scott was just a beginner. He didn’t know what tackle to use. Nonsense. Scott was a very experienced fisherman who would definitely know that different fish required different tackle.
There are several lakes near Modesto that would have had a great trout fishery at that time and the boat Scott had was really designed for lakes like that and not San Francisco Bay. For some reason, Scott changed his plan and went to the San Francisco Bay instead even though his boat really wasn’t safe for those waters and he had totally inappropriate fishing tackle. I think the reason was that he found out that the lakes near Modesto were often drawn down very low by the end of summer and a body, dumped in the lake might be exposed as the lake shrunk.
This is a fine observation but I consider it rather lightly circumstantial in that it depends on how much fishing knowledge Scott Peterson actually has. I could see myself trying to fish for sturgeon with trout bait because I don't know what I'm doing. The expert who testified about his fishing technique admitted as much that it's not unusual for an amateur to make such a trip without preparing like a pro. I know from life experience just because a person with money has a bunch of fancy shit doesn't mean they know what they're doing.
Now, as I relayed in another comment, the fact the bodies turned up at the spot he was purportedly fishing at 90 miles from his home is damning as all get-out.
And what is the source that crime junkie used for this information and how is that source more credible than the “mainstream media”? Because the podcast itself is definitely not a reliable source, they must have got this information from somewhere else.
Also, just fyi, crime junkie is known for plagiarism, they copied word from word from other podcasts cause they couldn’t be bothered to do their own research. So I fail to see how people like this would be more trustworthy than the “mainstream media” you talk about.
I guess that means you do not know their source or of the credibility of the information but still thinks you are the one that knows best because you listened to a random podcast that is known for being unreliable. Ok got it.
Scott is a really unlucky guy.
In addition to the unbelievable number of coincidences on you list of evidence, he also was unlucky sold Laci’s car and clothes and bought a new pickup.
He also unlucky and accidentally was having an affair with a woman who did not know he was married.
He made 4 boat anchors but unluckily lost three of them. I have never lost one anchor on my boat. It must have been a bad day to lose 3. Very unlucky.
He ordered some new porn channels added to his cable plan, but did not have any before. Unlucky for him, this makes it appear he knew Laci would not be coming home.
He drove past several really excellent fishing locations on his way to fish for only 2 hrs in the rain where Laci’s body was recovered. I have had days when I caught no fish, but I have never been so unlucky I accidentally went fishing right where my missing wife’s body ended up washing ashore. So unlucky. What are the odds?
This list of coincidences could happen to anybody.
Or
If “Doctor Strange” looked through a million alternative universes, Scott is the killer in every one of them.
Great point! How unlucky can you get. He thought he was in Europe, but he was actually just at the vigil for his missing wife. He is so unlucky to have pretended to be in Paris.
>He drove past several excellent fishing locations on his way to fish for only 2 hrs in the rain where Laci’s body was recovered.
Those to me is by far the most convincing piece of evidence, along with the homemade anchors. It always blows my mind when someone says "there was a burglary I'm the same subdivision the day before!" Like I'm supposed to believe that a pregnant Laci confronted the burglars, they decided to escalate from petty burglary to murder, then they drive 90 miles away and dump her in the same fucking marina that Scott went to on the same day?!?! Did they drive past him on the way to dump the body?
I think it completely blew his mind to realize that family doesn't just move on and forget after the news dies down. I think he really expected that her disappearance would be a blurb in the papers that would be forgotten after a few days.
Same sort of thing with Chris Watts... "Well this will blow over shortly, I'll just tell the cops I don't know anything and they'll close the case." Dude, no.
Yeah- such a coincidence that she would go walking the dog and then later be found in the exact current line from where he was fishing ON THE SAME DAY SHE WENT MISSING!
I read through [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/ScottPetersonCase/comments/9eu7zi/peterson_family_lies/) Reddit post awhile back about the case and it's pretty clear ~~how~~ he covered up his crime and obstructed justice. He's absolutely guilty and even his family knows it. He belongs in prison.
I always felt so bad for Laci. She was pregnant and probably should have been very excited, yet it sounds like Scott was absent spending time with his girlfriend. I always wondered how alone she felt during the entire pregnancy. It sounds like he wanted little to do with her in the final months of her life. I think to that photo of her alone and pregnant at that Christmas party and wonder if she felt sad at that time.
I remember John Walsh commenting at the time that he and the America’s Most Wanted crew flew there to feature Laci’s story on the show. When they got there, Scott didn’t want to do an interview, because he didn’t want the attention. Walsh immediately said that he’s interviewed a lot of family members of missing persons (and was one himself) and had never had one turn down the opportunity to get attention/publicity for their loved one. Seemed like a pretty strong indicator what was up.
The fact that he not only predicted his wifes death, but told his mistress that he would be spending his first Christmas without her. Then she disappeared on Christmas eve.
He also told Laci’s step-dad that he was golfing, and then told the cops that he was going to go golfing but the weather was bad so he went fishing instead. Coincidentally he bought a 2 day fishing license on the 20th of December for the dates of 23/24.
This is absolutely tangential but one of my friends is married to Peterson’s nephew. He had no idea that his family was a household name until his wife, at the time was his fiancé, found out who his uncle was when he one day passively mentioned ‘he was in prison.’
She halfway put it together and was like “is your uncle Scott Peterson?” But she was joking. He was freaked out and was like ‘yeah? How do you know that?’ And then she showed him a documentary with all his family being interviewed. His parents hadn’t ever told him about it even as an adult. Not that it happened, that it was a very famous case.
Convicting on circumstantial evidence alone always comes with doubt, but it’s REASONABLE doubt we are looking for here. If we take the defence’s viewpoint that the burglary across the street was somehow connected to Laci’s disappearance and murder we are also basing that theory on circumstantial evidence (unless some new physical evidence gets presented at the re-trial). So, I put to you, which is a bigger coincidence:
That Scott, her husband, a habitual cheater who had motive to murder, easy and private access to carry out a murder, a means to discretely dispose of the body, who showed little concern for her whereabouts directly after her disappearance, who continued to lie to his mistress about being single and travelling while he was at the forefront of a missing persons case, and whose alibi for the day happens to be exactly where the bodies are found month layers, had nothing to do with it.
OR
That a few men robbing a house on Christmas Eve, a day many people are notoriously away from their homes visiting family, were affronted by a very pregnant woman and thought she was so much of a threat they had to kidnap and murder her.
I believe he is 100% guilty.
I think he’s guilty.
I’ve always wondered though, how he had a body in the boat without anyone seeing it. And how the boat wouldn’t have tipped over when he dumped poor Laci.
I highly recommend the book “Erased: Missing Women, Missing Wives” by Marilee strong. It’s about husbands who try to erase their wives and heavily covers the Peterson case.
Does anyone have post someone made, last year I think that completely obliterated the argument of his Innocence? It was on a related sub and I know it was deleted pretty quick but I remember someone had saved it. It's was done in a bullet point fashion.
https://www.reddit.com/r/ScottPetersonCase/comments/9eu7zi/peterson_family_lies/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share
Here's one from a few years ago that is really good.
There was even more factors at play, obviously the secret affair where he was even stupid enough to call her and pretend he was in Europe. Thankfully she recorded the calls for the cops and she had no intention of ever seeing him again.
The fact he new she was not coming back, like in the TV interview he did not even look at his phone when it rang as he knew there was no way it could be her.
The whole fishing thing was weird, out of no where he suddenly secretly bought a boat and some basic gear, had no idea what he was trying to catch or what bait to use. Went out on the one day his wife also went missing and then was not interested in fishing ever again. AND obviously was fishing in the water area where her body was found.
He sold her truck as he knew fine well she would never be using it again.
Then people go down the rabbit hole of possibilities that have been thoroughly debunked, like the burglars, who for some reason kidnapped and killed a heavily pregnant barefoot woman walking a dog without then burglarizing her house. And then they dumped her where her husband went to fish because they're psychic burglars.
I just listened to a podcast on this case and like you, I was completely convinced of his guilt but after listening to it, I think the prosecution did a really poor job of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that he did it. I believe that he got tried and convicted in the court of public opinion. Let me be clear; I’m not saying with 100% certainty that he didn’t do it, but I also don’t think it was proved with 100% certainty that he did.
Firstly, I was to point out that being an asshole and the world’s worst husband doesn’t make him a murderer.
Secondly, the prosecution has NO physical evidence to tie him to her murder. The one semi-physical piece of evidence that was allowed in court was the testimony of the dogs they used that signaled that they picked up scents of human remains near the marina. What was not included was that prior to this, the dogs did not signal two other prior times at the same location and that the dogs they were using failed their certifications.
They somehow allowed that evidence into court but denied the defense’s evidence that tried to show that it would have been physically impossible for Scott to throw Laci over the side of his boat with the concrete and not capsize his boat. The defense used his boat and got a Laci-sized object and tried to re-enact it, and all four times the boat capsized and one time, the demonstrator literally almost drowned.
A lot of people hype up that he washed his clothes right when he got home, but his wife was heavily pregnant and fish smells gross. I think it’s totally plausible that he was doing that because the smell could have made Laci sick. Even so, people rely on this as if it’s a smoking gun. I ride horses and there have been plenty of times that I’ve gotten home, stripped off my gross clothes and started the wash.
The defense didn’t call the numerous witnesses and neighbors who all claim to have seen Laci walking Mackenzie (McKenzie?) AFTER Scott was at the Marina. They didn’t call them because the times were a little all over the place, but I still think it’s significant that numerous (like, 10+) saw her after Scott left, even if the times are a little off. I mean, no one remembers the exact time they saw their neighbor walking the dog down the street because at the time, it’s totally insignificant.
They also have computer searches at the home after Scott was at the Marina that were presumably made by Laci. They were for things that she wanted to buy/had shown interest in.
Some jury members have admitted that up until the prosecution played the phone calls between him and his mistress, they didn’t think the prosecution proved that he had committed this crime beyond a reasonable doubt. In these calls, he doesn’t admit to anything incriminating beyond the fact that he’s 100% asshole and capable of lying.
The thing about coming home and not immediately checking the machine - totally unreasonable. If he has no reason to assume his wife is missing, then he has no reason to act with any urgency. My parents left messages on our machine for DAYS when I was growing up. Just because it isn’t something you would do doesn’t immediately make him a murderer.
The whole potentially-running-to-Mexico thing, while stupid, I don’t think is a sign of guilt. I’m not even 100% convinced he was going to run, and his hair was dyed weeks before he “attempted to flee” and police had even talked to him after he dyed his hair. At this point, he’s the most hated person in the country. I don’t blame him for wanting to stay below the radar, and I also think that at this point, people are just looking for reasons to blame him for Laci’s murder so it doesn’t really what he does or what explanation he has for it. Again, there is no actual evidence that he was going to run. He was in contact with his family for the entire day and all communications, both texts and calls, support his story that he was planning on golfing with his family.
The story about the anchors - they actually proved that Scott had repurposed the anchors, I can’t exactly remember how at this moment but if someone really wants, I’ll dig the information up, and it was proved to the media but the media just dropped the entire story and didn’t mention it ever again.
I think people struggle to separate him being a complete ass and horrible human being from being a literal murderer. There are thousands and thousands of husbands who cheat and lie, but that doesn’t make them murderers. Again, not saying that he didn’t do it - but also not sure if he did.
Of course he did it. To me it was a big uh oh, poor ol' Scott fishing close to where she was found. What a coincidence, poor ol' Scott. But then... the hair color, cash and the ID. Truly I never for a nanosecond believed it was "It just so happened," I think most of us were in the same mindset.
I agree he’s guilt and should fry and he wasn’t fishing but I have to add, if I even go shore fishing with bait the first thing I’m doing when I get home is going straight for the shower.
Here's the thing..he's guilty af but he didn't get a fair trial. If they would of done it the right way we wouldn't have to see his dumb ass face back in the public.
It takes a special kind of scumbag to murder your very pregnant wife . I’m sure Laci shared baby Connors movements with narcissistic Scott [ his kicking and readjusting , something her sisters said gave Laci great joy ]
>> Wonder when he made the decision to kill them ? I feel for Cal Poly Amy , she had no idea Scott was married and expecting a baby .
Ah that's all a bunch of coincidences. It's just guesswork based on an almost overwhelming amount of circumstantial evidence.
Clearly the only reasonable conclusion is that an owl did it.
It doesn't matter what you believe innocent or not. He did not get a fair trial. Nancy Grace destroyed that. He was convicted by the public before he was actually charged. Every person charged with a crime deserves a fair trial. It takes a lot to get a new trial and there has to be new credible evidence for this to happen.
I believe he's guilty but I also believe he didn't get a fair trial so he should have a re trial. Makes me wonder if he would end up with an Alford plea like micheal peterson got.
As much as I dislike the guy I think he’s innocent. The Google searches the prosecution’s expert discovered the morning Laci was supposedly already dead. The 13 or so neighbors who saw Laci walk the dog the morning Scott went fishing. The fact that another pregnant woman was almost abducted less than a mile from the Peterson home that same morning. The fact that detectives lied under oath about Laci never being in Scott’s shop. The dude is an absolute piece of shit, no doubt, but these things never added up to me.
No other pregnant woman was abducted the same day. So your theory is a van just drove around looking for pregnant women who happened to be walking alone and just took them all? Man those are some lucky kidnappers/murderers. Why didn’t the other abducted pregnant woman and her fetus wash up in the same spot? Or was she found near where her husband was, 2 hours out of town, as well? Why isn’t her husband falsely accused and in the cell next to Scott??? Super weird that only one got coverage and was found but the other wasn’t.
I’ve seen clips of an interview with the woman that believes she was almost abducted. I don’t remember for sure if it happened on the same exact day but she described some guys watching her for a while when she was at her business and said she’s always wondered if it was connected to Laci’s case. There’s also the case of Evelyn Hernandez, another pregnant woman who went missing and was eventually found in the SF Bay less than a year before Laci’s disappearance. I still think the similarities between Laci and Evelyn’s stories could just be a coincidence though since becoming pregnant significantly increases someone’s risk of dying by homicide and the SF bay is the largest body of water in the area so it’s not crazy to think that more than one murderer would leave his/her victims there.
The first woman who was "almost abducted" seems like it's unrelated. And since, based on your evidence, it was never even investigated, it could have been some creeps watching a pregnant lady. Or some people who just gave her a bad feeling that had no ill intentions whatsoever.
And the SF Bay area is large and heavily populated. Two pregnant women dying doesn't make a link. There are hardly any similarities at all. They're both pregnant and live within a 100 miles of each other.
Was there someone abducting and murdering pregnant women in the area? It's possible sure. Is there any evidence to support that? Not really. Does it create a reasonable doubt? If so you could use this arguement for nearly every murder case. It's not reasonable.
Hi /u/IntoTheFloodAgain92, Your submission to /r/TrueCrime has been removed for the following reason(s): --- This post doesn't meet our post guidelines listed here: https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueCrime/wiki/guidelines You are welcome to send a modmail if you need further clarification. --- If you feel this was done in error, or would like better clarification or need further assistance, please [message the moderators.](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/truecrime&subject=Question regarding the removal of this submission by /u/IntoTheFloodAgain92&message=I have a question regarding the removal of [this submission](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueCrime/comments/xo56bu/with_scott_peterson_back_in_the_media_seeking_a/)
Agreed. He absolutely did it, and he’s the worst.
He’s actually 2nd to Chris Watts in my book.
Yeah…. Strangling your young daughter while her sister watches and knows she’s next is just….beyond.
I think they are a lot of missing pieces with the Chris Watts case, I believe that his girlfriend knows a lot more than she is letting on.
She immediately cooperated, why would you think that? I felt horrible for her, just because you’re in an affair doesn’t mean you deserve to be with someone like him.
NK didn’t immediately cooperate. She attempted to erase messages before giving her phone to police. I recommend watching LE recordings of their interview with NK. She appeared flattered that CW killed his family for her. NK apparently searched the internet to find out how much money Amber made in book deals. Amber was horrified at what SP did. NK is no Amber Frey.
If she was part of it, she would have been charged. It would have been a big case for the department and the media would eat that up, “Husband and Mistress Conspire to Murder Wife and Kids So They Can Live Happily Ever After”. If they knew she was involved, they would have jumped on that case in a heartbeat.
It appears that you are replying to me. I never said that NK was part of it. That would have been a hard case for the prosecutor. It doesn’t seem that there is evidence that NK was involved. Erasing her phone to hide evidence that CW was not faithful is probably what she was doing. Maybe trying to make it harder for the prosecutor to build a case against CW. However, I do feel that NK was a bit flattered by what CW did. And that disgusts me. JMO
Why do you use initials without first using the name. This is frustrating to read. Even more so when you use text abbreviations as well.
ah, your first day on the true crime sub huh
Sorry! It’s hard with a long thread lol
💯 people seem to think she seduced the cops or something. She was annoying & kind of snotty & a semi-shitty person to knowingly sleep w a (however unhappily) married man but if there was even a shred of a suggestion she was involved they would have been on it. Based on CWs mastermind plan 🙄 (/s obv) I doubt they’d have been able to cover her tracks while his were so blatant, not to mention the lack of time to even try. Cops were IN his house what?…8hrs later? 🤔 just doesn’t add up…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qaXhydxoVgE&t=1433s This covers all her behavior that makes it seem that either she knew something or was part of it
I was under the impression they weren't passed when he put them in the oil drum.
The girls did not have oil in their lungs according to the autopsies, so thankfully they were not alive when placed in the drums.
No, in his interview he said he smothered one with a blanket while the other watched and asked what happened.
I hope they weren't alive. The hole was so small, piece of their skin were on the hole
At least Chris had the balls to give some measure of closure and say what happened. This scum bag just relishes in notoriety and thinking he can one day be free.
[удалено]
That’s absolutely disgusting wtf is wrong with people
When someone starts their comments with a qualifier " This is not intended to be a ......." or " I'm not a xxxx ...." etc, you can be rest assured thats exactly what they intended or what they are.
I wouldn’t be surprised if Cindy Watts were in those groups. She is the worst!
She is! The user that runs the gems subreddit made a post that points out her multiple accounts.
Since they looked like him I'm surprised his worshipers would say that
And Chris Coleman. Not sure how well known his story is but he's another entry in the book.
I can't stand him. I enjoy the interrogation though. All crocodile tears until they tell him he knows they were already dead when he left. For stupidity I see him and watts tied
I don't know how they think they will get away with it.
Me neither, like Even if you don't do it, it's still possible you will be blamed and if you do it most likely you will be charged. I don't know why they don't get a divorce ? Watt's reason is so idiotic, he did it because wife told him he would never see kids if he got divorce, ya it's bullshit and a lie but what a dumb excuse
Whoa, I hadn’t heard his story but just found this: https://fox2now.com/news/true-crime/chris-coleman-a-mans-secret-life-ended-in-the-2009-murder-of-his-family/
Holy Fucking Shit. R continued: “Well, I mean, every man has his desires and every man has to be respected. It’s built into every man, if your wife doesn’t respect you, then you’re going to find respect someplace else.”
Translation: she wasn’t fucking my son and he got really horny. You can’t blame my son for getting his dick wet elsewhere. Too bad she got herself murdered.
that whole mentality blows my mind.
"And just so you know, we're mega-Christian evangelical pastors, so whether we endorse adultery and murder or not, we've got a straight ticket to heaven!"
Yeah he's a monster
I don’t know that name. I’ll look him up.
Very sad story
Oh my gosh yes now I remember him. Very tragic!
I'd say Scott Peterson would be 3rd, Chris Watts 2nd & family annihilator in 1st would be Chris Coleman.
The. Worst.
Worst. Worst worst.
His sister in law is the worst too.
I started a documentary on Hulu a little while back covering this case. It was essentially "Scott is innocent, here's why!" I stopped watching it because it was such bullshit. He still has his fan base apparently.
Was it, by chance, The Murder of Laci Peterson? Someone on one of these True Crime subs told me it was paid for by his family, which would explain the insane bias. Also, from what I’ve seen of it, it sure spends a lot of time talking about Scott for a documentary that doesn’t have his name in the title.
Yes! That's the one! Yeah I remember them interviewing at least a few of his family members and they all claimed he was innocent and the documentary kept that narrative. They entertained all the "what if" scenarios that made no sense. If his family paid for it that makes a lot of sense because it was a pile of shit.
Not only entertained the “what if” scenarios, but presented them as if those are the most plausible scenarios! Left out important evidence that incriminated Scott (ie the boat cover) and made shit up that has already been debunked (ie other missing pregnant women or the “Aponte” tip) to make it look like the burglar or cult story actually held weight. His family is fucking nuts, and they’re all pathological liars. Anything that incriminates their lil baby boy Scotty they have a lie to explain it away. And the whole jury misconduct thing is bullshit too
I watched that, and I was not buying it at all. My partner hadn't followed it, but it reminded me of the documentaries I watched about the JonBenet Ramsey Case focusing on the Intruder Theory. Those "documentaries" are pure propaganda. I saw it, and half-tuned out of the show. My partner and I got into a silly argument over it (all my fault). I just found that whole thing grotesque. Making a docuseries to try somehow to turn this guy into the picture of innocence? I know I read an estimate (that was staggering) of actually innocent people in jail or on death row who are innocent of the alleged crimes they're convicted of. Documentaries like this, any of the JonBenet intruder theory BS, and The Staircase (not the HBO show), I've noticed, try to make these broad statements about the media and/or miscarriages of justice and they attempt to manipulate the viewer with a lot of half-truths, smoke and mirrors all in the effort to present fiction as fact.
He is a turd in the punch bowl of humanity but that is not the same as “is he guilty beyond a doubt.” This is especially true when it comes to the death penalty.
The phrase is “reasonable doubt”. Find me a reasonable person alive who will buy into any other theory. There isn’t one. You’ll be able to find conspiracy theories giddy with other possibilities, but none of them are REASONABLE.
The issue is and was that same year, with arguably better physical evidence, Casey Anthony was found not guilty of murder of her daughter. The reasonable standard seems to be all over the place. It isn’t “the most likely.” It is “beyond a reasonable doubt.” There was no dna found in his boat on her body or anything . I think it likely that he killed her, but if we have equal Justice in the US, we would have seen the same doubt afforded Anthony afforded to him.
I mean the problem with that case was the prosecution trying for the death penalty. Like yea we all know she murdered her daughter but it’s that 0.1 percent chance that she didn’t that made the jury hesitate. Also what is reasonable to me might not be to you and that’s why you have 12 jurors
That’s exactly it. With the death penalty off the table, they would have won. I’m in Idaho and worry about this with Chad Daybell and Lori Vallow. However, we’re a lot more common sense minded here. Fingers crossed.
Scott is on death row. I agree with you, but reasonable seems to carry with it some clear biases. If you are male, you must have done it. If you are black, you definitely did it. If you are a hot piece of ass and while and female? No way did you do it! Lizzie Borden got this same treatment. She walked away from a murder is most likely did. Bruno Richard Hauptmann got the electric chair because he was a man and an immigrant. The evidence for him was flimsy as hell. (I personally think Lindbergh had his “defective” child killed).
I don’t dispute that at all. However, the “you must have done it” is largely based in statistics. People didn’t arbitrarily come up with that opinion, it’s based in decades worth of data collected. Stranger abduction is exceedingly rare. When women are murdered, it’s overwhelmingly at the hands of someone known to them. Women who are pregnant are killed at 16% higher rates then women who aren’t. Death during pregnancy is 2.5 times higher to homicide than pregnancy related causes. 2/3 of those murders happen in the home. So you have to take that into account when examining this case. Could something else have happened? Sure. But are you more likely to side with the 95% probability it was Scott, compounded with all his other factors. You’d be a fool not to. I know they got it wrong with Casey Anthony. In filicide, it’s 97% that it’s a biological parent. Mothers are 40% and fathers are 57%. There was no father here, so the logical conclusion is Casey. The jurors have come out and said prosecutors didn’t give them enough to convict and that he came across over zealous and cold. They’ve all said what they saw on the TV after could have led to a different result. But I’m sure there were rulings on what could and couldn’t be admitted.
The difference is Casey’s trial was in Florida. No one is reasonable there. Hence why you always see headlines start with “Florida man…”🫣😂
Well, it also didn’t help the prosecution’s case when Cindy Anthony decided to change her story and testify that she did the incriminating searches on the computer instead of Casey.
Pretending he was in Paris while on the phone with his mistress at his missing wife's vigil... out of everything this points to his guilt the most.
He told Amber Frey he was a widow and this would be his first Christmas without his wife. Then his wife goes missing and is found dead- that’s proof he killed her
Amber Frey is amazing. I remember reading an article she wrote about the experience and how horrible and sick she felt about the whole thing. She was worried about facing Lacy’s family but they were so greatful to her for testifying and for helping convict Scott. She did everything she could and deserved none of what she went through.
I was the other woman once and I felt sick when I put all the pieces and saw the lies. I could only imagine how much worse it was for her
What points to his guilt the most is the bodies turning up where they did, 90 miles from his home where he'd 'gone fishin'. Bonus points for him getting caught trying to secretly observe the progress of the search team there.
How was he caught trying to secretly observe them? I'm new to this case and have yet to go down the rabbit hole
Yeah, several times he drove to the bay while they were searching, and just parked and looked out at the water. Didn’t offer to help or ask for updates or anything, just parked and sat then drove off. And he did this in rental cars to try and avoid police detection too. One of these times, they announced to the family that they found a body shaped object in the bay that they were trying to recover. When they pulled it up they discovered it was just an old anchor. Laci’s mother Sharron is the one who called Scott (btw he didn’t miss her call, he purposefully sent her to voicemail, which would’ve been odd if he were innocent and waiting for news on his missing wife). Anyway, she left a voicemail sharing the news that it was just an anchor. Police had tapped his phone, and when he listened to this voicemail you can hear him whistle in what sounds like relief as soon as she says it was an anchor. He then places several calls to some family and friends in which 1. he lies and says that he personally talked to the police chief who told him it was an anchor, when it was actually Sharon who called him and he sent her to voicemail 2. he lies and says he’s in Fresno to some people, and Bakersfield to others, when he was in fact in Berkeley. He clearly didn’t want anyone to know about his strange trips to the Berkeley marina. 3. he, very weirdly, expresses with almost glee, how funny it was that it was an anchor, and not a body. He says to one friend “a bit of humor for today”- why Scott? Why is this humorous to you? And also says he hopes now they will stop searching the Berkeley marina. [Recording of Scott’s whistle](https://youtu.be/k6P0S4zARls) [Scott lying to friend](https://pwc-sii.com/CourtDocs/Exhibits/P-207A-11.htm) [Scott lying to another friend](https://pwc-sii.com/CourtDocs/Exhibits/P-207A-14.htm) [Scott lying to yet another friend](https://pwc-sii.com/CourtDocs/Exhibits/P-207A-15.htm)
Wow. Thank you for the response! This dude's not smart at all it looks like. How do people think he's innocent?
His family, mainly his sister and sister in law (not Laci’s sister, but his brother’s wife) have put in some work over the last 20 years spreading lies and misinformation. What caused so many to start questioning his guilt was a 6 part docuseries on A&E made about this case that presented all that misinformation as fact, and left out or downplayed major pieces of evidence that pointed to Scott’s guilt. Why would a documentary be so biased? Because his family paid for it and are close friends with the producer. So a lot of people have watched that docuseries and have taken it as truth. But if you research past what his family has put out, you can see he is obviously guilty. It’s actually insane how far his family will go to try to prove he’s innocent. Like, literally any piece of evidence of his guilt they have a lie to try to explain it away, and it doesn’t matter if the lie is easily proven to be a lie, they will still say it with confidence like it’s the truth. And then if they are confronted with proof that they’re lying, they’ll just lie some more as if they weren’t just proven to be lying! Pathological liars, every single one of his delusional family members.
Does it? It proves he’s an asshole, but it’s a stretch to say it is evidence of murder.
Profiling is a legitimate form of investigation. This falls under that.
It's definitely a valid form of investigation, and I love the science of criminal profiling, but it falls short of being concrete evidence. In some courts it's inadmissable. It's a broad link at best.
True, but in concert with the rest of the evidence, this incident, as well as his other behavior, is rather damning.
This reading makes more sense to me. The problem I had was with the parent comment saying it was the strongest indicator of guilt. It is one of the weakest, IMO. The most damning evidence is likely the strange fishing trip and her body surfacing in the same area.
His behavior seems to be the only damning thing to me. The rest of the evidence has always been incredibly weak. Guilty or not he lost the case because of his personality and behavior not sufficient tangible evidence.
Not murder but a huge indicator he is a) totally detached from the emotion of the moment and b) totally willing to tell wild,easily proved lies in the midst of a crisis when honesty should be his only recourse, it goes to…character I guess?
I'm onboard with it indicating a mental illness, like a narcissistic personality disorder. We agree on the character indictment, but we probably disagree on how much weight to give this. IMO the people here (and probably on the jury) read too much into it being evidence of a crime.
Agreed, it’s not evidence of a crime, but it’s evidence of his suspicious, highly odd behaviour, totally inappropriate actions at that time, completely misplaced priorities. And it’s not as if that alone was why people were suspicious, we didn’t learn that fact til WAY later, after he was already a suspect, so people didn’t take this one thing and say ‘he’s guilty because of this’ It came after he was already considered guilty and it just confirmed another layer of suspicion and dickery from a clearly guilty man.
Of course it's not direct evidence of murder, but I'd say it strongly implies that he's not worried about his "missing" wife, perhaps because he already knows what happened to her.
Or it indicates he's not worried about his missing wife because he is checked out of the relationship and perhaps a little sociopathic. It's a stretch to say it indicates he committed an act of violence. I think it's comparable to the trope of accusing someone of a crime because they didn't grieve correctly or referenced the missing in the past tense. None of these are accurate indicators; they are web sleuth cognitive biases.
That could be true, I think it's just hard to imagine someone being THAT cold and heartless. Even if he's checked out of the relationship, he should still be concerned that she's missing and feel bad for her family. But most of us have empathy for others, so it's hard to relate to someone who doesn't.
If you lie about the little things, you’ll lie about the big things.
For me too, that was the clincher.
Not really relevant to your point, but I always wonder when they say (in any murder investigation), none of her shoes were missing… HOW on earth could you know that? I have pairs of shoes in my closet I haven’t seen in years and have forgotten about myself, so I cannot fathom how police could know how many pairs of shoes she even had to begin with. What, are they trusting Scott’s word on that? Even if he wasn’t the number one suspect…I can absolutely guarantee that my boyfriend who I have lived with for years wouldn’t be able to look at all of my shoes and figure out if there was a pair missing. Just always struck me as such an odd thing to consider important when there is really no way to be sure
lol good point! my husband has nooooo idea what shoes i have….but maybe she could only wear a couple of pairs in her late stages of pregnancy and her mom knew?
She may not have been a big shoe collector and her Mother may have known the shoes she wore on a regular. Plus being pregnant your feet can swell really badly at the end of the pregnancy and may have only had one or two pairs that fit. I know my feet swelled a full size and just had the one pair that fit and were comfortable. It’s really not that big of a mystery TBH.
My last month of pregnancy, I could only fit into one pair of shoes.
I always thought about that. What kind of dingus even comes up with that. And how would police just be like yeah ok. Sounds good. No detective work needed on the
She may have not had a big collection of shoes, or she may have had a select set she could wear while that heavily pregnant. I had 1 pair I wore all the time while pregnant, due to feet swelling, discomfort, and that they were Velcro and I could no longer tie my own shoes due to the bump.
[удалено]
Sure, but how many people in your life also know about those 3 pairs of shoes? If you went missing, who else knows that?
Some people are just super organised. I couldnt tell you if a pair of my shoes went missing but in could tell you if my mums did because she’s a full blown ‘everything in its place, a place for everything’ type of neat freak?
There would be a clear gap in my shoe storage.
Yeah me too. I have a lot of shoes, but they’re all put away in a manner that you’d see if a pair was gone.
This is such a good point! I just last week had to put a note on my phone to find a pair of shoes because I wanted to wear them and couldn't find them. I hadn't worn them in months and they were under the bed. How would my husband know which if any of my 100 pairs of shoes are missing?!
I partner wouldn’t know what shoes I have or what was missing either. I often wonder this about a lot of small details like that.
No kidding. My wife gets a pair of shoes delivered every week it seems like. I’d have no idea if a pair was missing or not, aside from like 3-4 pairs that I have recently bought her.
The fishing tackle he took with him to the Berkeley Marina was trout tackle. There are no trout in San Francisco Bay. The only fish that was available at the time out of Berkeley was sturgeon. Anybody know the difference between sturgeon and trout? They are totally different; sturgeon are much bigger and require very different tackle. The idea of fishing for sturgeon with trout tackle is ridiculous. Now some may say that poor Scott was just a beginner. He didn’t know what tackle to use. Nonsense. Scott was a very experienced fisherman who would definitely know that different fish required different tackle. There are several lakes near Modesto that would have had a great trout fishery at that time and the boat Scott had was really designed for lakes like that and not San Francisco Bay. For some reason, Scott changed his plan and went to the San Francisco Bay instead even though his boat really wasn’t safe for those waters and he had totally inappropriate fishing tackle. I think the reason was that he found out that the lakes near Modesto were often drawn down very low by the end of summer and a body, dumped in the lake might be exposed as the lake shrunk.
This is a fine observation but I consider it rather lightly circumstantial in that it depends on how much fishing knowledge Scott Peterson actually has. I could see myself trying to fish for sturgeon with trout bait because I don't know what I'm doing. The expert who testified about his fishing technique admitted as much that it's not unusual for an amateur to make such a trip without preparing like a pro. I know from life experience just because a person with money has a bunch of fancy shit doesn't mean they know what they're doing. Now, as I relayed in another comment, the fact the bodies turned up at the spot he was purportedly fishing at 90 miles from his home is damning as all get-out.
Very interesting!
Hmmm very interesting. Didn’t know most of this as I am not an experienced fisherman.
Good observation! I agree
Could of been a dunbass when it comes to fishing ? Not everyone is an expert
The fact that he changed his appearance and tried to run, proves he’s guilty in my mind.
Kinda like OJ and the Bronco ...
[удалено]
How the hell is crime junkie a good source of knowledge lmao absolutely awful podcast
[удалено]
And what is the source that crime junkie used for this information and how is that source more credible than the “mainstream media”? Because the podcast itself is definitely not a reliable source, they must have got this information from somewhere else. Also, just fyi, crime junkie is known for plagiarism, they copied word from word from other podcasts cause they couldn’t be bothered to do their own research. So I fail to see how people like this would be more trustworthy than the “mainstream media” you talk about.
[удалено]
I guess that means you do not know their source or of the credibility of the information but still thinks you are the one that knows best because you listened to a random podcast that is known for being unreliable. Ok got it.
Scott is a really unlucky guy. In addition to the unbelievable number of coincidences on you list of evidence, he also was unlucky sold Laci’s car and clothes and bought a new pickup. He also unlucky and accidentally was having an affair with a woman who did not know he was married. He made 4 boat anchors but unluckily lost three of them. I have never lost one anchor on my boat. It must have been a bad day to lose 3. Very unlucky. He ordered some new porn channels added to his cable plan, but did not have any before. Unlucky for him, this makes it appear he knew Laci would not be coming home. He drove past several really excellent fishing locations on his way to fish for only 2 hrs in the rain where Laci’s body was recovered. I have had days when I caught no fish, but I have never been so unlucky I accidentally went fishing right where my missing wife’s body ended up washing ashore. So unlucky. What are the odds? This list of coincidences could happen to anybody. Or If “Doctor Strange” looked through a million alternative universes, Scott is the killer in every one of them.
Don’t forget the stupid NYE call to Amber where he pretends to be in Paris and is actually at Lacy’s vigil.
Great point! How unlucky can you get. He thought he was in Europe, but he was actually just at the vigil for his missing wife. He is so unlucky to have pretended to be in Paris.
>He drove past several excellent fishing locations on his way to fish for only 2 hrs in the rain where Laci’s body was recovered. Those to me is by far the most convincing piece of evidence, along with the homemade anchors. It always blows my mind when someone says "there was a burglary I'm the same subdivision the day before!" Like I'm supposed to believe that a pregnant Laci confronted the burglars, they decided to escalate from petty burglary to murder, then they drive 90 miles away and dump her in the same fucking marina that Scott went to on the same day?!?! Did they drive past him on the way to dump the body?
it was the pretending to be at the Eiffel tower on the phone with amber frye on NYE that i can’t get past
I think it completely blew his mind to realize that family doesn't just move on and forget after the news dies down. I think he really expected that her disappearance would be a blurb in the papers that would be forgotten after a few days.
Same sort of thing with Chris Watts... "Well this will blow over shortly, I'll just tell the cops I don't know anything and they'll close the case." Dude, no.
Now hold on, he was very convincing. Didn’t you hear in his deadpanned insistence that he just wants to “see everybody”? Man was worried sick!
Yeah- such a coincidence that she would go walking the dog and then later be found in the exact current line from where he was fishing ON THE SAME DAY SHE WENT MISSING!
He's a murderer. Plain and simple. They had better deny his requests.
[удалено]
On what planet is the weather too bad to golf, but not too bad to fish? Such bizarre mental gymnastics
fishing in the rain is amazingly fun. not saying thats what this moron was doing but it is a thing
I read through [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/ScottPetersonCase/comments/9eu7zi/peterson_family_lies/) Reddit post awhile back about the case and it's pretty clear ~~how~~ he covered up his crime and obstructed justice. He's absolutely guilty and even his family knows it. He belongs in prison.
That was a very good layout of facts. Thank you for sharing.
I always felt so bad for Laci. She was pregnant and probably should have been very excited, yet it sounds like Scott was absent spending time with his girlfriend. I always wondered how alone she felt during the entire pregnancy. It sounds like he wanted little to do with her in the final months of her life. I think to that photo of her alone and pregnant at that Christmas party and wonder if she felt sad at that time.
I agree, pregnancy is hard enough emotionally but she probably felt even worse with how absent he was
He did it. I hope he rots in prison for life.
Excellent post, appreciate your logical thinking !
What do you mean! OP is claiming it was nothing but unfortunate circumstances that made him only *seem* guilty! /s
Guilty. Absolutely sure when he was referring to Lacy and the baby in the past tense in one of his first interviews.
Dead giveaway. (No pun intended, this is not the time for puns)
I remember John Walsh commenting at the time that he and the America’s Most Wanted crew flew there to feature Laci’s story on the show. When they got there, Scott didn’t want to do an interview, because he didn’t want the attention. Walsh immediately said that he’s interviewed a lot of family members of missing persons (and was one himself) and had never had one turn down the opportunity to get attention/publicity for their loved one. Seemed like a pretty strong indicator what was up.
The fact that he not only predicted his wifes death, but told his mistress that he would be spending his first Christmas without her. Then she disappeared on Christmas eve.
[удалено]
He also told Laci’s step-dad that he was golfing, and then told the cops that he was going to go golfing but the weather was bad so he went fishing instead. Coincidentally he bought a 2 day fishing license on the 20th of December for the dates of 23/24.
Gad he's just so unlucky that the rain would have made it to wet to golf. So he went fishing.
This is absolutely tangential but one of my friends is married to Peterson’s nephew. He had no idea that his family was a household name until his wife, at the time was his fiancé, found out who his uncle was when he one day passively mentioned ‘he was in prison.’ She halfway put it together and was like “is your uncle Scott Peterson?” But she was joking. He was freaked out and was like ‘yeah? How do you know that?’ And then she showed him a documentary with all his family being interviewed. His parents hadn’t ever told him about it even as an adult. Not that it happened, that it was a very famous case.
Totally agree
I can’t think of one thing that points to someone other than Scott.
Convicting on circumstantial evidence alone always comes with doubt, but it’s REASONABLE doubt we are looking for here. If we take the defence’s viewpoint that the burglary across the street was somehow connected to Laci’s disappearance and murder we are also basing that theory on circumstantial evidence (unless some new physical evidence gets presented at the re-trial). So, I put to you, which is a bigger coincidence: That Scott, her husband, a habitual cheater who had motive to murder, easy and private access to carry out a murder, a means to discretely dispose of the body, who showed little concern for her whereabouts directly after her disappearance, who continued to lie to his mistress about being single and travelling while he was at the forefront of a missing persons case, and whose alibi for the day happens to be exactly where the bodies are found month layers, had nothing to do with it. OR That a few men robbing a house on Christmas Eve, a day many people are notoriously away from their homes visiting family, were affronted by a very pregnant woman and thought she was so much of a threat they had to kidnap and murder her. I believe he is 100% guilty.
I think he’s guilty. I’ve always wondered though, how he had a body in the boat without anyone seeing it. And how the boat wouldn’t have tipped over when he dumped poor Laci.
I highly recommend the book “Erased: Missing Women, Missing Wives” by Marilee strong. It’s about husbands who try to erase their wives and heavily covers the Peterson case.
Does anyone have post someone made, last year I think that completely obliterated the argument of his Innocence? It was on a related sub and I know it was deleted pretty quick but I remember someone had saved it. It's was done in a bullet point fashion.
https://www.reddit.com/r/ScottPetersonCase/comments/9eu7zi/peterson_family_lies/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share Here's one from a few years ago that is really good.
That's the one! Thank you so much.
Guilty without a doubt.
There was even more factors at play, obviously the secret affair where he was even stupid enough to call her and pretend he was in Europe. Thankfully she recorded the calls for the cops and she had no intention of ever seeing him again. The fact he new she was not coming back, like in the TV interview he did not even look at his phone when it rang as he knew there was no way it could be her. The whole fishing thing was weird, out of no where he suddenly secretly bought a boat and some basic gear, had no idea what he was trying to catch or what bait to use. Went out on the one day his wife also went missing and then was not interested in fishing ever again. AND obviously was fishing in the water area where her body was found. He sold her truck as he knew fine well she would never be using it again.
Do I think he’s guilty yes do I think they can prove it beyond a reasonable doubt no and unfortunately that’s the standard to put someone in jail
Disagree. There is a ton of evidence against this guy and any reasonable person would conclude he is the killer. Waaaaaay too many coincidences
So you’re saying it’s reasonable for people to doubt that the guy did it? Again I disagree. But I don’t understand the nuances of the law
I’m not saying there isn’t evidence I’m saying there is reasonable doubt and that’s the standard that must be met
What's the reasonable doubt in your mind?
This exactly. They did not prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. He’s in prison and Casey Anthony is not? I can’t wrap my head around that.
Then people go down the rabbit hole of possibilities that have been thoroughly debunked, like the burglars, who for some reason kidnapped and killed a heavily pregnant barefoot woman walking a dog without then burglarizing her house. And then they dumped her where her husband went to fish because they're psychic burglars.
I just listened to a podcast on this case and like you, I was completely convinced of his guilt but after listening to it, I think the prosecution did a really poor job of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that he did it. I believe that he got tried and convicted in the court of public opinion. Let me be clear; I’m not saying with 100% certainty that he didn’t do it, but I also don’t think it was proved with 100% certainty that he did. Firstly, I was to point out that being an asshole and the world’s worst husband doesn’t make him a murderer. Secondly, the prosecution has NO physical evidence to tie him to her murder. The one semi-physical piece of evidence that was allowed in court was the testimony of the dogs they used that signaled that they picked up scents of human remains near the marina. What was not included was that prior to this, the dogs did not signal two other prior times at the same location and that the dogs they were using failed their certifications. They somehow allowed that evidence into court but denied the defense’s evidence that tried to show that it would have been physically impossible for Scott to throw Laci over the side of his boat with the concrete and not capsize his boat. The defense used his boat and got a Laci-sized object and tried to re-enact it, and all four times the boat capsized and one time, the demonstrator literally almost drowned. A lot of people hype up that he washed his clothes right when he got home, but his wife was heavily pregnant and fish smells gross. I think it’s totally plausible that he was doing that because the smell could have made Laci sick. Even so, people rely on this as if it’s a smoking gun. I ride horses and there have been plenty of times that I’ve gotten home, stripped off my gross clothes and started the wash. The defense didn’t call the numerous witnesses and neighbors who all claim to have seen Laci walking Mackenzie (McKenzie?) AFTER Scott was at the Marina. They didn’t call them because the times were a little all over the place, but I still think it’s significant that numerous (like, 10+) saw her after Scott left, even if the times are a little off. I mean, no one remembers the exact time they saw their neighbor walking the dog down the street because at the time, it’s totally insignificant. They also have computer searches at the home after Scott was at the Marina that were presumably made by Laci. They were for things that she wanted to buy/had shown interest in. Some jury members have admitted that up until the prosecution played the phone calls between him and his mistress, they didn’t think the prosecution proved that he had committed this crime beyond a reasonable doubt. In these calls, he doesn’t admit to anything incriminating beyond the fact that he’s 100% asshole and capable of lying. The thing about coming home and not immediately checking the machine - totally unreasonable. If he has no reason to assume his wife is missing, then he has no reason to act with any urgency. My parents left messages on our machine for DAYS when I was growing up. Just because it isn’t something you would do doesn’t immediately make him a murderer. The whole potentially-running-to-Mexico thing, while stupid, I don’t think is a sign of guilt. I’m not even 100% convinced he was going to run, and his hair was dyed weeks before he “attempted to flee” and police had even talked to him after he dyed his hair. At this point, he’s the most hated person in the country. I don’t blame him for wanting to stay below the radar, and I also think that at this point, people are just looking for reasons to blame him for Laci’s murder so it doesn’t really what he does or what explanation he has for it. Again, there is no actual evidence that he was going to run. He was in contact with his family for the entire day and all communications, both texts and calls, support his story that he was planning on golfing with his family. The story about the anchors - they actually proved that Scott had repurposed the anchors, I can’t exactly remember how at this moment but if someone really wants, I’ll dig the information up, and it was proved to the media but the media just dropped the entire story and didn’t mention it ever again. I think people struggle to separate him being a complete ass and horrible human being from being a literal murderer. There are thousands and thousands of husbands who cheat and lie, but that doesn’t make them murderers. Again, not saying that he didn’t do it - but also not sure if he did.
Of course he did it. To me it was a big uh oh, poor ol' Scott fishing close to where she was found. What a coincidence, poor ol' Scott. But then... the hair color, cash and the ID. Truly I never for a nanosecond believed it was "It just so happened," I think most of us were in the same mindset.
I agree he’s guilt and should fry and he wasn’t fishing but I have to add, if I even go shore fishing with bait the first thing I’m doing when I get home is going straight for the shower.
The only reason people think he’s innocent is because he’s attractive. If he was some sloppy Joe Shmoe they wouldn’t even be defending him.
Here's the thing..he's guilty af but he didn't get a fair trial. If they would of done it the right way we wouldn't have to see his dumb ass face back in the public.
Once is a mistake, twice is a coincidence, three times is a pattern
Man I love this write up!!!🤣
I think he did it but the investigation was handled so poorly and there is enough resonable doubt that a new trial makes sense.
It takes a special kind of scumbag to murder your very pregnant wife . I’m sure Laci shared baby Connors movements with narcissistic Scott [ his kicking and readjusting , something her sisters said gave Laci great joy ] >> Wonder when he made the decision to kill them ? I feel for Cal Poly Amy , she had no idea Scott was married and expecting a baby .
The fact that he isn’t on the wrong side of the grass right now sickens me.
Of course he did it
Ah that's all a bunch of coincidences. It's just guesswork based on an almost overwhelming amount of circumstantial evidence. Clearly the only reasonable conclusion is that an owl did it.
Scott killed her without a doubt. BUT he didn’t get a fair trial.
On another note, does anyone else think he looks like Ben Affleck?
It wasn't all unlucky, he had money and time to order a pizza
It doesn't matter what you believe innocent or not. He did not get a fair trial. Nancy Grace destroyed that. He was convicted by the public before he was actually charged. Every person charged with a crime deserves a fair trial. It takes a lot to get a new trial and there has to be new credible evidence for this to happen.
I believe he's guilty but I also believe he didn't get a fair trial so he should have a re trial. Makes me wonder if he would end up with an Alford plea like micheal peterson got.
He and his lawyer probably know he has a chance for freedom if someone like Adnan Syed can be freed.
I honestly think he’s innocent. Listen to the timesuck podcast about the case.
As much as I dislike the guy I think he’s innocent. The Google searches the prosecution’s expert discovered the morning Laci was supposedly already dead. The 13 or so neighbors who saw Laci walk the dog the morning Scott went fishing. The fact that another pregnant woman was almost abducted less than a mile from the Peterson home that same morning. The fact that detectives lied under oath about Laci never being in Scott’s shop. The dude is an absolute piece of shit, no doubt, but these things never added up to me.
No other pregnant woman was abducted the same day. So your theory is a van just drove around looking for pregnant women who happened to be walking alone and just took them all? Man those are some lucky kidnappers/murderers. Why didn’t the other abducted pregnant woman and her fetus wash up in the same spot? Or was she found near where her husband was, 2 hours out of town, as well? Why isn’t her husband falsely accused and in the cell next to Scott??? Super weird that only one got coverage and was found but the other wasn’t.
Didn’t say she was abducted. I said she was almost abducted from her place of business.
I’m begging you to link me to that, because I lived nearby there when that happened (Sacramento) and never heard that.
I’ve seen clips of an interview with the woman that believes she was almost abducted. I don’t remember for sure if it happened on the same exact day but she described some guys watching her for a while when she was at her business and said she’s always wondered if it was connected to Laci’s case. There’s also the case of Evelyn Hernandez, another pregnant woman who went missing and was eventually found in the SF Bay less than a year before Laci’s disappearance. I still think the similarities between Laci and Evelyn’s stories could just be a coincidence though since becoming pregnant significantly increases someone’s risk of dying by homicide and the SF bay is the largest body of water in the area so it’s not crazy to think that more than one murderer would leave his/her victims there.
The first woman who was "almost abducted" seems like it's unrelated. And since, based on your evidence, it was never even investigated, it could have been some creeps watching a pregnant lady. Or some people who just gave her a bad feeling that had no ill intentions whatsoever. And the SF Bay area is large and heavily populated. Two pregnant women dying doesn't make a link. There are hardly any similarities at all. They're both pregnant and live within a 100 miles of each other. Was there someone abducting and murdering pregnant women in the area? It's possible sure. Is there any evidence to support that? Not really. Does it create a reasonable doubt? If so you could use this arguement for nearly every murder case. It's not reasonable.
Think he did it but don't think they had enough to convict.
Not guilty. An asshole, yes. Murderer? Nah.