GUILTY CA - Laci Peterson, 27, pregnant, Modesto, 24 Dec 2002 #2

[Leprikawn]

Yes @Leprikawn ….. and IIRC there was also that little tale SP told AF then, something about this being a first Christmas (was it) without his spouse or wife?

And that call to AF from ‘Paris’ IIUC? SMH

Seems to me IMO that based on the case then, evidence presented, the defense’s case, and the jury deliberations…… the right individual is now in prison for the crime. Actually crimes, since there was LP and also the near term IIRC unborn child. MOO

Yeah and the bodies being found in the same water area he said he was fishing at is suspect as well.

 

[LinasK]

I understand why the majority of people think he is guilty. Trust me, I get the reasoning. But in terms of actual evidence, direct evidence, evidence that 110%, without a doubt points to Scott being guilty, no, it just doesn't exist or at least in my opinion, what we do know and what has been made public, doesn't convince me of his guilt. And yes, I know there is "more" than just the cheating and the way he acted with Amber and what he said. But to me, the finger-pointing towards Scott only ramped up when his affair with Amber came to light and I struggled with that because it felt like a slow burn and then BAM, affair, he definitely did it. It's just my opinion though and I get it is not a popular one lol

Circumstantial evidence is every bit as strong as direct evidence, sometimes better than say eyewitnesses who are unreliable.

 

[Ghostwheel]

I understand why the majority of people think he is guilty. Trust me, I get the reasoning. But in terms of actual evidence, direct evidence, evidence that 110%, without a doubt points to Scott being guilty, no, it just doesn't exist or at least in my opinion, what we do know and what has been made public, doesn't convince me of his guilt. And yes, I know there is "more" than just the cheating and the way he acted with Amber and what he said. But to me, the finger-pointing towards Scott only ramped up when his affair with Amber came to light and I struggled with that because it felt like a slow burn and then BAM, affair, he definitely did it. It's just my opinion though and I get it is not a popular one lol

I would like to know, how would you explain the bodies being found 90 miles away from her home, in the exact place Scott Peterson was fishing? Real question because that was one of the things I can't get past (in conjunction with other things). There are so very many places to dispose of a body between the house and there.

 

[otto]

But to me, the finger-pointing towards Scott only ramped up when his affair with Amber came to light and I struggled with that because it felt like a slow burn and then BAM, affair, he definitely did it. It's just my opinion though and I get it is not a popular one lol

RSBM & BBM

I don't agree with that.

The existence of Amber was a shock to everyone, from her mother, father, brother and half-sister to everyone who had read about Laci's disappearance. Scott was looked at with some questions, but he was not a focus until after Amber came forward. The problem was not that Scott had a girlfriend, but what she reported that he said, and what she revealed through recorded phone conversations.

Having a girlfriend did not convince anyone of Scott's guilt.

Scott seemed to be the grieving man who desperately wanted to find his pregnant wife. All of Laci's friends, Sharon's friends, community volunteers ... all of them worked alongside Scott believing that he was uninvolved.

It is not a scenario where Scott was targeted and then Amber came forward. It was a scenario where no one understood what happened, and the picture came together over time as more evidence was released. Amber was a piece of the evidence, not the only evidence.

 

[otto]

One piece of evidence that floored everyone was when Scott had a reporter in his house interviewing him about Laci's disappearance.

During the interview, while his wife is missing, his phone rang. He put his phone away, did not answer the phone.

How did he know that phone call was not Laci calling to ask for help?

 

[LinasK]

RSBM & BBM

I don't agree with that.

The existence of Amber was a shock to everyone, from her mother, father, brother and half-sister to everyone who had read about Laci's disappearance. Scott was looked at with some questions, but he was not a focus until after Amber came forward. The problem was not that Scott had a girlfriend, but what she reported that he said, and what she revealed through recorded phone conversations.

Having a girlfriend did not convince anyone of Scott's guilt.

Scott seemed to be the grieving man who desperately wanted to find his pregnant wife. All of Laci's friends, Sharon's friends, community volunteers ... all of them worked alongside Scott believing that he was uninvolved.

It is not a scenario where Scott was targeted and then Amber came forward. It was a scenario where no one understood what happened, and the picture came together over time as more evidence was released. Amber was a piece of the evidence, not the only evidence.

Besides- the girlfriend is MOTIVE. Many killers kill their wives because of the new woman in their lives. Scott didn't want to be a father and he was a cheater. He might have envisioned a future with Amber. He told her "this will be my first Christmas without my wife".

 

[Bernie54]

One piece of evidence that floored everyone was when Scott had a reporter in his house interviewing him about Laci's disappearance.

During the interview, while his wife is missing, his phone rang. He put his phone away, did not answer the phone.

How did he know that phone call was not Laci calling to ask for help?

So many pieces of circumstantial evidence cannot be denied. Taken together, they carry the weight of direct evidence.

Consider the Boat and its very existence. The fact he purchased it earlier in December but never mentioned it to Anyone, even among a family discussion regarding fishing etc. A week prior to the murders.

There was evidence he made a number of anchors in the warehouse, but only one anchor was found (in the boat- with No Rope attached). Yeah, very useful anchor that would be! The bucket used to make them was not found either.

The fishing lures in unopened package. The rolled up chicken wire along with a pair of needle nose pliers with strands of Laci’s hair entangled in it. All found in the boat.

The bodies washing up after heavy storms pushed them inland directly in line with the island he admitted “fishing” next to.

There are coincidences… and then there are things that come to light that, taken together, cannot be ignored that point to his guilt. Common sense can also smack you in the face just like direct evidence!

Poor Laci. So much promise. Too bad she never saw him coming.

 

[otto]

So many pieces of circumstantial evidence cannot be denied. Taken together, they carry the weight of direct evidence.

Consider the Boat and its very existence. The fact he purchased it earlier in December but never mentioned it to Anyone, even among a family discussion regarding fishing etc. A week prior to the murders.

There was evidence he made a number of anchors in the warehouse, but only one anchor was found (in the boat- with No Rope attached). Yeah, very useful anchor that would be! The bucket used to make them was not found either.

The fishing lures in unopened package. The rolled up chicken wire along with a pair of needle nose pliers with strands of Laci’s hair entangled in it. All found in the boat.

The bodies washing up after heavy storms pushed them inland directly in line with the island he admitted “fishing” next to.

There are coincidences… and then there are things that come to light that, taken together, cannot be ignored that point to his guilt. Common sense can also smack you in the face just like direct evidence!

Poor Laci. So much promise. Too bad she never saw him coming.

Yep. It goes back to that common strategy used by defence lawyers - to parse out each piece of evidence, question it in isolation, and dismiss. That is, each piece of evidence is dismissed independent of all other evidence in order to conclude that the the sum of the parts, or the totality of individual pieces of evidence, can be dismissed.

Aristotle: “The whole is greater than the sum of the parts.”

The strategy is to deny that the whole, or totality of evidence, tells a different story than each piece of evidence in isolation. Here are some pieces of evidence that, in isolation, do not result in the conclusion that Scott murdered his wife.

• Having a murdered wife and a girlfriend does not mean that the husband murdered his wife
• Telling his girlfriend, prior to his wife's disappearance, that the next Christmas would be his first without his wife does not mean that he knew she would vanish the day before Christmas
• Hiding the fact that he bought a fishing boat shortly before his wife's disappearance does not mean he planned to use the boat to hide her body
• Evidence of homemade anchors and chicken wire next to his secretly stored boat does not mean he intended to use them to sink his wife's body
• Her hair in his pliers on his boat does not mean that the hair got there on the day she vanished, even though no one knew that that he owned a boat
• His wife's body discovered where he was fishing on the day she vanished does not mean that the fishing trip was to dispose of the body.
• Ignoring phone calls shortly after his wife vanished does not mean that the he knew that his wife was not phoning him
• Whistling in relief when news reports surfaced that the object at the bottom of the ocean was a big ole anchor

Circumstantial Evidence: the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.

 

[ilovewings]

Yep. It goes back to that common strategy used by defence lawyers - to parse out each piece of evidence, question it in isolation, and dismiss. That is, each piece of evidence is dismissed independent of all other evidence in order to conclude that the the sum of the parts, or the totality of individual pieces of evidence, can be dismissed.

Aristotle: “The whole is greater than the sum of the parts.”

The strategy is to deny that the whole, or totality of evidence, tells a different story than each piece of evidence in isolation. Here are some pieces of evidence that, in isolation, do not result in the conclusion that Scott murdered his wife.

• Having a murdered wife and a girlfriend does not mean that the husband murdered his wife
• Telling his girlfriend, prior to his wife's disappearance, that the next Christmas would be his first without his wife does not mean that he knew she would vanish the day before Christmas
• Hiding the fact that he bought a fishing boat shortly before his wife's disappearance does not mean he planned to use the boat to hide her body
• Evidence of homemade anchors and chicken wire next to his secretly stored boat does not mean he intended to use them to sink his wife's body
• Her hair in his pliers on his boat does not mean that the hair got there on the day she vanished, even though no one knew that that he owned a boat
• His wife's body discovered where he was fishing on the day she vanished does not mean that the fishing trip was to dispose of the body.
• Ignoring phone calls shortly after his wife vanished does not mean that the he knew that his wife was not phoning him
• Whistling in relief when news reports surfaced that the object at the bottom of the ocean was a big ole anchor

Circumstantial Evidence: the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.

One of my very favorites constantly used,by the,defense-----"just because so and so was,unfsithful to his wife doesnt make him a murderer--- my response would be " but it doesnt mean he isnt a murderer"

 

[otto]

One of my very favorites constantly used by the defense -----"just because so and so was unfaithful to his wife doesn't make him a murderer --- my response would be "but it doesn't mean he isn't a murderer."

Both true, but defence lawyers like to confuse people by implying that the only reason they believe someone is guilty is due to one isolated piece of evidence. Defence lawyers exploit the idea that everyone places a little more weight on piece of evidence, so discrediting the most obvious piece of evidence may result in weakening the belief that someone is guilty.

Defence says that adultery is not reason for murder. True. Defense lawyer says that point can be excluded. Next point ... and so on ... excluded one by one in isolation. Then the defence lawyer summarizes that no piece of isolated evidence results in proven guilt, therefore the client is innocent.

Mark Garagos tried hard to use this argument. Evidence was presented that Scott put Laci's body in his boat, attached homemade anchors to her body, travelled to the shipping channel, and tossed her body overboard. Geragos went down a rabbit hole based on whether Scott could toss her body overboard without tipping the boat. He went so far as to put a boat near the courthouse to theatrically illustrate his point.

Anyone who believed that it is possible that Scott could have tipped the boat while pushing Laci overboard should then discard evidence of the secret boat, Laci's hair in the pliers, homemade anchors, location of body where Scott was fishing. People should instead believe that satanic worshippers, who were robbing the house across the street, grabbed Laci, drove their satanic van to the location where Scott was fishing and put her body there to frame Scott.

 

[Ghostwheel]

RSBM

Anyone who believed that it is possible that Scott could have tipped the boat while pushing Laci overboard should then discard evidence of the secret boat, Laci's hair in the pliers, homemade anchors, location of body where Scott was fishing. People should instead believe that satanic worshippers, who were robbing the house across the street, grabbed Laci, drove their satanic van to the location where Scott was fishing and put her body there to frame Scott.

Without tipping THEIR boat.....

 

[LinasK]

Both true, but defence lawyers like to confuse people by implying that the only reason they believe someone is guilty is due to one isolated piece of evidence. Defence lawyers exploit the idea that everyone places a little more weight on piece of evidence, so discrediting the most obvious piece of evidence may result in weakening the belief that someone is guilty.

Defence says that adultery is not reason for murder. True. Defense lawyer says that point can be excluded. Next point ... and so on ... excluded one by one in isolation. Then the defence lawyer summarizes that no piece of isolated evidence results in proven guilt, therefore the client is innocent.

Mark Garagos tried hard to use this argument. Evidence was presented that Scott put Laci's body in his boat, attached homemade anchors to her body, travelled to the shipping channel, and tossed her body overboard. Geragos went down a rabbit hole based on whether Scott could toss her body overboard without tipping the boat. He went so far as to put a boat near the courthouse to theatrically illustrate his point.

Anyone who believed that it is possible that Scott could have tipped the boat while pushing Laci overboard should then discard evidence of the secret boat, Laci's hair in the pliers, homemade anchors, location of body where Scott was fishing. People should instead believe that satanic worshippers, who were robbing the house across the street, grabbed Laci, drove their satanic van to the location where Scott was fishing and put her body there to frame Scott.

But Adultery was the reason for this murder- that and Scott not wanting to be a father... Just like the guy in GA Ross Harris who murdered his little boy in a hot car death so that he could be free.

 

[Knox]

I respect all posters opinions, but in this case the mountain of circumstantial evidence is simply insurmountable. You could question a couple things, but when viewed in total. It’s an avalanche!!

I’ve stated this many times-Scott was a spoiled, pampered, and entitled child. Catered too by everyone in his life. He was “special”, as an adult he thought he deserved anything he desired, and manipulated anyone in his path to get his way. It never crossed his mind that people wouldn’t believe his lies.

 

[otto]

But Adultery was the reason for this murder- that and Scott not wanting to be a father... Just like the guy in GA Ross Harris who murdered his little boy in a hot car death so that he could be free.

I always believed that Scott murdered Laci because he didn't want the responsibility and cost of a child. He's too selfish.

Laci inherited jewellery and one third of a house from her grandmother shortly before she died. At the time of her death, reports were the she was looking to buy a Mercedes and a larger house in an expensive district over-looking the ocean. A Mercedes was viewed as a safer vehicle for transporting a child. A larger house in a better neighbourhood was viewed as preferable for raising a child. It was going to be an expensive upgrade.

It was believed that Laci could not have children due to surgery as a child. After Laci was pregnant, Scott made remarks to friends and family that he was hoping for infertility.

Scott was okay with dating women who had one child because it wasn't his responsibility. It's also possible that Scott chose Amber because she had a pre-schooler, and he wanted to experience how it worked with a child in the relationship.

Scott didn't need to murder his wife to have other women on the side, and I don't believe he intended to marry Amber regardless of arrest and conviction. He murdered Laci 6 weeks prior to her due date of Feb 13 because he was running out of time to get rid of a baby that was about to become the centre of Laci's attention.

 

[ilovewings]

I always believed that Scott murdered Laci because he didn't want the responsibility and cost of a child. He's too selfish.

Laci inherited jewellery and one third of a house from her grandmother shortly before she died. At the time of her death, reports were the she was looking to buy a Mercedes and a larger house in an expensive district over-looking the ocean. A Mercedes was viewed as a safer vehicle for transporting a child. A larger house in a better neighbourhood was viewed as preferable for raising a child. It was going to be an expensive upgrade.

It was believed that Laci could not have children due to surgery as a child. After Laci was pregnant, Scott made remarks to friends and family that he was hoping for infertility.

Scott was okay with dating women who had one child because it wasn't his responsibility. It's also possible that Scott chose Amber because she had a pre-schooler, and he wanted to experience how it worked with a child in the relationship.

Scott didn't need to murder his wife to have other women on the side, and I don't believe he intended to marry Amber regardless of arrest and conviction. He murdered Laci 6 weeks prior to her due date of Feb 13 because he was running out of time to get rid of a baby that was about to become the centre of Laci's attention.

Totally agree!!!!!

 

[clue chaser]

Poor family…having to relive this over and over.

 

[otto]

Poor family…having to relive this over and over.

Scott's family keeps trying to get him out of jail. Their only argument is that Laci accosted the robbers across the street, so they kidnapped her and tried to frame Scott. Geragos' satanic van theory is ridiculous.

One point that is rarely mentioned is Laci's cell phone. Scott knew that it was in her car as soon as police arrived. Why would he know that? Laci was in the final weeks of her pregnancy and there were some concerns as she felt unwell. She had visited the doctor the day before her disappearance because of pregnancy concerns.

If she walked the dog to the park, she would have had her cell phone with her.