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

[–] nieder27 11 years ago

I stopped reading pretty early on, when you said that he changed his appearance because America was hounding him. Sorry buddy, but that's not what Scott said. He said THE SUN bleached his hair and beard. If he had actually come out and said that he did it to hide from the media, then maybe that would be something.

Not to mention that you used the word "retarded" which is an awful word AND you misspelled it.

And that's the definition of...ironyyyyyyy.

Lord beer me strength.

[–] megafauna005 11 years ago

They also found a gun, thousands of dollars, colored beard and hair, and fake IDs on him! GUILTY as a mofo!

[–] HorrorFanatic23 10 years ago

Wow. He killed her. He got mad when he found out she was preggo. He cheated on her and even after she dissapeared. He STILL was with Amber. He changed his looks. Showed no remorse.

The guy is evil. Hoping he dies very soon!

Victims..Aren't we all?

[–] screenscreams 9 years ago

It's not "guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt", it's "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt", and linking circumstantial evidence is enough evidence for a conviction. You don't have to have DNA proof.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,"
~First Amendment

[–] GIRobotII 9 years ago

I don't "want" anyone to be guilty in this case. I wish no one was guilty in this case, that it had never happened. That Laci was still living. But it did happen. And, objectively speaking, there is simply far too much DAMNING evidence on Scott, whether you like it or not, OP. Scott kept changing his story. At first he claimed he was fishing, then he later claimed to be golfing. Blood in the boat. Proof that he made his own anchors. The police search dog smelled Laci's path from the house to the driveway, indicating she got into (or was placed) into a vehicle. His lack of concern from the moment he called Laci's mother and told her Laci was "missing," until hers and the baby's bodies were found about three months later (He was playing golf, partying without a care in the world). The night he went to a Christmas party with Amber Frey, and telling Laci it was for business, while she went to the Christmas party alone, without Scott. The witnesses who saw Scott driving his truck, pulling his boat behind it, the morning Laci disappeared, to San Francisco Bay (no doubt, to substantiate his fishing story). His behavior on the phone calls with Amber, while the search for Laci and the baby was on, still flirting with her. God, he even caller Amber while they were having a candlelight vigil for Laci in a local park, and telling her he was in Paris during the New Year's celebration. Circumstantial evidence DOES count, if you have enough of it to link. Uh-uh. I'm sorry, but Scott Peterson, ladies and gentlemen, is guilty as sin. If he didn't want his wife anymore, that's fine. All he had to do was divorce her. That's what a real man would do. But he's a boy who never had the balls to become a man. He is selfish, and he is a coward. Nobody ruined him. He did that by himself.

[–] Reva_C 9 years ago

Before I say anything, I'm going to nail my colours to the mast...I think he did it.

However....a very big however....to be found guilty in the court of law, it needs to be proven beyond all reasonable doubt, and it's innocent until proven guilty, ie, it's not for him to prove he didn't do it, but for the prosecution to have proven beyond all reasonable doubt that he did do it.

Now, I think he did it...but thinking someone did it based on circumstantial reasoning and gut feeling is very different from it being *proved* *beyond all reasonable doubt*. I'm surprised he was found guilty based on the lack of real evidence. But I've been surprised and even scared by verdicts over here too, it's not just a US thing.

~ I hardly looked at his face. His knees were what I wished to see. ~

[–] drtagnjr 9 years ago

A very good way to put it, but too often everyone focuses on the PROVED beyond all reasonable doubt..rather than proved beyond all REASONABLE doubt. That is because what is considered reasonable doubt is a threshold that will vary from person to person. In this case, 12 people (assuming it's 12 on a jury in CA) all agreed that the evidence, circumstantial or otherwise, and testimonies (weighted based on how much they considered each person credible) had them believe it was beyond their reasonable doubt.

What I find disturbing in this discussion is the comparisons to other cases that found the defendant not guilty due to circumstantial evidence, testimonies, stories told and most importantly juries seeming to require DEFINITIVE proof, rather than just enough to be beyond reasonable doubt. Zimmerman and Casey Anthony come to mind. Now I was not on either juries and didn't see each and every piece of testimony, but the arguments I have heard about what crucial pieces of information or points of interest in evidence made it "not" beyond a reasonable doubt always come up as weak flights of fancy than what I would consider to be making these cases acquittals versus guilty verdicts. Again, its all opinion based, but when you have someone that feels that because all of the details can't be proven 100% across the board with zero doubt at all...it is irksome I guess.

I feel there were enough actions and inconsistencies in Scott's behavior and stories that combined with circumstantial evidence, that the guilty verdict is founded. I do have to agree with the original poster on one point though.. Nancy Grace annoys me :)

[–] HorrorFanatic24 9 years ago

Him having an affair and laughing in interviews oh and the bleach smell didn't help him. Him the boat she was by water.

I hope he dies.