MovieChat Forums > The Perfect Husband: The Laci Peterson Story (2004) Discussion > My thoughts on Scott and the conviction....

My thoughts on Scott and the conviction....READ!

posted 17 years ago by sambanks2
28 replies | jump to latest

Allright, where to begin???

Well, here's my little recap of what transpired:

I followed this case very closly from the time it was first on the national news about Laci's dissapearance. It really interested me.
So the news keeps coming day after day all over Fox News, CNBC and all of the otehr news channels, and the story gets bigger and bigger. Laci is nowhere to be found. Everyone's looking for her, wanting her to come home, and be found alive so bad. Many rumors are going around, many theorys as to where she is at and what happened to her.....
Then Amber Frey comes out and reveals her affair with what seems like the perfect husband Scott Peterson. Then things turned in a whole new direction. People started to suspect that Scott may have had something to do with Laci's disappearance. The spotlight is on him big time. Soon, Lacy's body is found, and Scott is arrested and charged with her murder. People are causing such a fuss because Scott has changed his appearance, and had a lot of money on him, and other things in his vehicle. Scott is eventually convicted of Laci's murder, and sentenced to death.

OKAY, first off, him even being arrested is a complete joke. They had no reason to arrest him. They used the excuse of him being a flight risk. That's a joke. Then it's shown all over television, and Nancy Grace's man hating b*tch @ss is all over television slamming Scott. They are questioning why he would get a new truck, and change his appearance, and be so far away from Modesto. Well, to anyone who uses that rationale I have one question for you. If you were in a position where you had EVERY person in the United States, all of the media outlets, and everyone in your home town watching you like a hawk, calling you a murderer and making your life a living Hell every minute, wouldn't YOU take any precautions to have some sort of a sembelence of anonymity??? I would think that anyone in Scott's position would try and fly under the radar as much as possible. I know that if everyone in the U.S. knew what kind of vehicle I had and was always looking for it, that I would get a new one. And if I couldn't go into town to the bank without being looked at as a murderer, I would damn sure have enough cash on me that I would need for a while so I wouldn't have to go there. And anyone who is too stupid to realize why he changed his appearance that has to have it explained to you, I feel deeply sorry for you because you are retarted.
Now let's talk about the evidence that they had against Scott. Well, I guess this is going to be a short paragraph because they didn't have ANYTHING linking him to a murder beyond a shadow of a doubt. NOTHING. So what, he went fishing, there were many people fishing that day. So what he had a small boat that not all of his in-laws knew about. DO YOU tell your in-laws about EVERYTHING new that you purchase?? I doubt you do. So what if they didn't know about the boat, that doesn't mean jack sh*t. OH, he had some coffee cans that he made anchors out of. Big deal. He needed some anchors for his boat. Everyone with a boat needs anchors. Now, if they would have actually found some of his homemade anchors in the water, then THAT would have been some evidence that could have been rightfully used. They didn't have ANYTHING on this guy.
I never knew who Nancy Grace was before this whole Laci saga. And I wish that I had no knowledge whatsoever about her. She pisses me off to no end. She is such a total huge b*tch about EVERYTHING. And it REALLY seems like she is a man hater. I have never raised a hand to a woman, but if there was ever a woman who I would love to punch square in the nose, it's Nancy Grace. Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty you stupid b*tch??? She has no credibility whatsoever after the way she handled this case. She was so biased toward one side, and anyone who was a guest on her show who looked at things different than she did during this case, she was a total b*tch to them. I hate her.[/nancy grace rant]
Back to Scott Peterson.
The whole trial was a complete joke as well. I guess it is pretty damn easy to convice ANY person of anything you want to when you kick everyone off of the jury who has any inkling that the person may be innocent. It's pretty damn easy to gain a conviction that way. I watched this trial every day almost. They didn't have ANYTHING on Scott that was worthy of a conviction....NOTHING! And it is a sad day in the American Justice System when someone can be convicted just because a few people WANT someone to be guilty. Sure, Scott was a liar. Sure, Scott was a cheater. Sure, he may not have came off that personable during the trial. But does any of those three things make Scott a killer?? No. People WANTED Scott to be guilty, so they convicted him, even though the Prosecution couldn't muster up ANY real evidence linking him to any murder. Okay, Scott killed Laci??? What was the murder weapon? What was the cause of death? When did she die? Where did she die? All of the answers to these questions are VERY important in convicting someone of murder. How many did this trial have?? You answer that for me, because I allready know that the answer is less than numero uno. HOW IN THE HELL can you convict someone of murder when you have NONE of these??? The answer to that is simple. It's because you WANT that person to be guilty. GOD FORBID you actually have PROOF that the guy is guilty! I mean, that is actually the way things are SUPPOSED to go down in the Justice System isn't it?? The presecution has to PROVE that the defendant is guilty. IN NO WAY shape form or fashion did that happen in this case.
When this case is re-tried, Scott will be found not guilty. Enough time has passed, and it isn't so fresh on everyone's minds, that the trial will be more fair. People have had more time to see where things are messed up, and how ignorant the last trial was. I find it VERY hard to believe that Scott Petersons lawyers won't be able to just KILL the prosecutions case this time around. I mean, they allready know everything that they have, and that they are going to use against them. It is going to be fun to watch. Geragos is going to murder them in the court room.....no pun intended.

Okay, in finishing, if you ask me if I think Scott Peterson killed his wife Laci, I will tell you that, yeah, he more than likely did. BUT, you have to PROVE it, which you CANNOT do. There is no proof whatsoever that this guy was anything other than an adulterer and a liar. And being an adulterer and a liar DOES NOT equal being a murderer. You cannot convict Scott just because you THINK he did something. Hell, I THINK he did it, but I, nor anyone else can prove it. So therefor, if it cannot be proven, you cannot convict him of murder. That is NOT the way this American Justice System works, or it isn't supposed to at least. You are INNOCENT until proven GUILTY in this country, something that most people fail to have realized in the Scott Peterson case.

He WILL be found innocent next time around, as well as he should be. If you can't prove that he killed Laci, then you CANNOT convict him of her murder. Like it or not, it's the right thing to do. If you start convicting people in this country just because you WANT them to be guilty, that is a dark dark road to be going down.

-------------
"Well there's that. I guess I have that."
-Andrew Largeman-Garden State

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] sambanks2 17 years ago

Since when is dying your hair circumstantial evidence???

So I guess ANY change in appearance of ANYONE who is a suspect is cause to arrest them for any crime they are suspected of????

That's insane.

-------------
"Well there's that. I guess I have that."
-Andrew Largeman-Garden State

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] PC_Green 17 years ago

your paragraph on the actual evidence was weak. you forgot to mention the blood and hair found in his truck, and the fact that the clothes she wore on December 23erd were missing. If she went missing on Christmas Eve, then really there should be no reason for her clothes to be missing that she wore the previous day. Especially when Scott's description included different clothes then the ones she wore on December 23erd. It seems your paragraph on the evidence was mediocre and then you lost focus by returning to rag on Nancy Grace. Is your paragraph about Scott & the evidence or how much you loathe Nancy Grace? First lesson in English, keep each paragraph a reflection of your opening sentence.
Secondly, Scott by no means, acted innocent. Maybe anyone could be unsure of how to act when their wife/husband/child ect. went missing. But surely, going golfing and planning on selling your car(s) and house as well as starting another relationship with another person-when you relay to everyone that you believe she is coming home is not an acceptable way of acting. If someone you loved was missing, and you truly had no idea where they were, would you do any of the later things? Probably not.
Thirdly, as quaint as "Innocent Until Proven Guilty" illusion is, this only works if you are a somebody. Scott Peterson was indeed a nobody. The justice system does not give a flying flip what happens to this guy, neither does anybody else. As far as I am concerned based on him being a nobody and the amount of loop holes he had in "his" side of the story (just about as many loop holes as your argument for his innocence) he totally deserves to go to jail. Of course he is guilty. This was premeditated murder. A parting thought: Since you researched this case so well, did you know that he had taken a huge life insurance policy out her before she had gone "missing?"

[–] junk-1499 16 years ago

I have never agreed with the Peterson verdict. When a jury uses a defendant's lack of emotion and an extra marital affair as grounds for a guilt verdict, then we've got some problems in our legal system. He was tried and convicted in the media, and while I certainly have sympathy for Laci's family, I find it very chilling to think that a death verdict is possible in this case.

[–] ariamne 16 years ago

Maybe you should write to Scott in prison--he probably would love to read about your theory and with all the time he has on his hands, may even write you back! You two could start a competition: who can write the most insulting review of the Nancy Grace show. It is an interesting study of human behavior: every person I've heard or read about defending Scott Peterson comes off as a real dirtbag scum sucking turd. You included.

Cheers,

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] aliceingoreland 15 years ago

I am sorry, but how much circumstantial facts does it take to add up? There is a great deal. It makes no sense that anyone other than Scott did it.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] libby2130 11 years ago

exactly...and he didn't just dye his hair blonde, he had his brothers passport in the car down in san diego when they stopped him...he was going to make a run for the border.

[–] pnayballer10 13 years ago

I like to point out that the OP is an idiot.

First off there's plenty of evidence he didn't even bother to mention. Like the report that Scott Peterson filed when Lacey disappeared. He said he was playing Golf. Then changed it to him fishing in the same bay that Lacy Peterson's body was found. Gee was that suppose to be a coincidence. His own wife's body was dumped in the same bay he was fishing at. The exact same day she disappeared.

I bet it was also a coincidence that Scott Peterson took out a $250,000 insurance policy on Lacy's life if she died.

The reason there was no way to prove how Lacy died, what time she died, what weapon was used. Because the body was so badly decomposed from the bay water.

You bring up the evidence for the prosecutors. Yet you didn't even bring up Scott Peterson's weak ass defense during the trail. Which was basically calling all his old college buddies. And telling the Jury what a nice guy he was. Now how did that prove he didn't do it.

You sir obviously didn't do much research. Or you just want to defend this murderer just to get attention. If its the latter than your truly pathetic. Its 5 years and this scumbag is still behind bars. The only thing I regret is that the chicken *beep* state called California. Don't have the guts to stick a needle in him and finally rid ourselves of this POS.

[–] crimson2003 13 years ago

Actually it is you who needs to do further research. They both had insurance policies out on each other, 250,000 for him, and 100,000 for her. This was done after they were married and well before she even became pregnant. The media reported this case so incredibly wrong.

Additionally, someone above posted that they never found the clothes she was in the night before. This is also incorrect, the sister did in fact pick out from the house the clothes she had worn the day before when she got her haircut, and her body was found in a different pair of pants. This was confirmed by the police in a photograph line up with the sister.

I personally think he did it, but I'm just pointing out that I think the OP was correct in a few ways about the lack of direct evidence, and these two pieces of information are largely misreported myths about this case.

[–] bella_tj9 10 years ago

Even that is far too circumstantial and doesn't prove he did it...very weak evidence, I'd say, for the death penalty, at least.

I agree with the OP. I'm not american and heard about this case, and was imagining there was really damaging evidence to support the conviction. There is hardly anything, even circumstatial...

They found her hair in his boat, but that is only relevant if she never ever stepped foot in his boat (I don't now if that's the case - if it is, than it's damning evidence). Otherwise, wouldn't it be normal to have your wife's hair on your boat? And from what I understand there was no blood found anywhere (despite what another poster is saying above).

The only thing they have is his presence in the bay, which is important, but not proof beyond reasonable doubt.

[–] przgzr 12 years ago

It seems that most people avoid replying to the subject that OP wants to talk about. It is not the matter if one believes that Peterson did it or not, there are enough threads that deal with it.

It is a matters of American legal system, and the basic premise that everybody is innocent until proven guilty.

I am not American, and I look at it from a very different angle. Though many people don't like Americans or at least don't agree with them for what they do, say, show etc, there are things about USA that most of them have admired and praised. For years, for decades, the "innocent until proven guilty" principle was a distant dream for millions of people. Now, building young and still weak democratic societies, they still hope that one day their countries will reach this old illusion. However, the more they get close, the more it looks as if USA, the creator of the principle, seems to abandon it.

And it is not just this part of legal system people have problem with, but some closely linked matters of American law an politics make people confused. People who dreamed about any kind of democracy can hardly trust the country whose promising politician can lose any chance for being elected just because he was seen leaving some hotel in a wrong moment. There were no enemies in the hotel, no industrial spies, no corruption mentioned, nothing that would disqualify him as a politician. He wasn't competing for a man of the year, for a Pope, for a perfect husband, he was competing for a political function and doing nothing that would show him incapable to be a perfect politician. Also, mentioning Peterson "nobody" in one of the posts... American appear to be magicians in making nobody become not only somebody, but a crucial person. We, out of USA, have been astonished to see what popularity did Miss Levinsky gain in America, and how much time did Americans spend on this minor episode in President Clinton's life. How can the rest of the world trust the country that wants to be a world leader if they neglect all the political issues and spend weeks and months deciding if their president is worth keeping his position not because of what he's done in his own and to other countries, but just because of what he's been doing in his private rooms in his private time.

And the cases like Peterson one don't help to return the image of America those people once had and then lost it.

[–] Mehki_Girl 12 years ago

Exactly...this country has become a joke. The media pretty much runs everything now. Decisions are no longer based on fact or anything that resembles unbiased fact for that matter. Every decision is based on what the media reports and distorts based on whatever bias it wants to extort.

[–] usersince03 11 years ago

I have no idea what happened that day but I wondered if he hired someone to kill his wife because he said on the phone to the ex mistress I will tell you who did it when I see you next.

[–] megafauna005 11 years ago

They caught Scott in multiple lies and the found Laci's body at the EXACT spot he went fishing!

GUILTY!

[–] mptnla 11 years ago

You can't say it was the "exact" spot. The current could have carried the body for miles. It was found within one mile of where he alledgedly was fishing. That's circumstantial.

Someone mentioned her clothes from the night before were missing. We've all done this: She was going to walk the dog. She probably threw on the clothes she had on the night before. I’ve done that if I’m running out to the car to get something, or running downstairs to mail a letter, or dashing to the corner store for something. Circumstantial.

I just watched this movie yesterday, and I remembered when this all happened and I said he would be found not guilty based on the evidence. I was really surprised by the verdict. Do I believe he did it, yeah, but I don’t believe the case was ever proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

I would have succeeded if it weren't for those meddling kids!

[–] lindsey-dyson 10 years ago

Presumed Guilty book by Matt Dalton is recommended for those interested in his defende