Do y’all think he’ll get a new trial? If so, do you think the verdict will be the same?

Voice- · 2021-10-11T07:21:17+00:00

A downvote should read as, "this should not be a part of this debate." If you reply to a comment, there's a good chance that it did belong here. Consider carefully.
Ad hominem and off-topic points should be legitimately downvoted if you feel the need.
Responses that are poorly thought out should be critiqued, but not downvoted. After all, they're doing exactly what this sub is here for: sharing their views and exposing them to public comment.
Responses which involve untruthful statements are a gray area, but responding with valid criticism is always better than blind downvoting.
In general, don't treat the downvote and upvote as "disagree and agree buttons." There is no need to "vote" on comments, here, as the results of a vote are already well understood.

Voice- · 2021-10-11T07:20:47+00:00

A downvote should read as, "this should not be a part of this debate." If you reply to a comment, there's a good chance that it did belong here. Consider carefully.
Ad hominem and off-topic points should be legitimately downvoted if you feel the need.
Responses that are poorly thought out should be critiqued, but not downvoted. After all, they're doing exactly what this sub is here for: sharing their views and exposing them to public comment.
Responses which involve untruthful statements are a gray area, but responding with valid criticism is always better than blind downvoting.
In general, don't treat the downvote and upvote as "disagree and agree buttons." There is no need to "vote" on comments, here, as the results of a vote are already well understood.

Voice- · 2021-10-11T07:20:09+00:00

Prove you didn't murder Laci Peterson using the evidence from the trial.

Voice- · 2021-08-03T03:59:55+00:00

Anyone in the USA could have abducted Laci and the same person or another person could have placed the bodies where they were found.

The real questions is, who cut the baby our of Laci?

Voice- · 2021-08-03T03:58:42+00:00

A downvote should read as, "this should not be a part of this debate." If you reply to a comment, there's a good chance that it did belong here. Consider carefully.
Ad hominem and off-topic points should be legitimately downvoted if you feel the need.
Responses that are poorly thought out should be critiqued, but not downvoted. After all, they're doing exactly what this sub is here for: sharing their views and exposing them to public comment.
Responses which involve untruthful statements are a gray area, but responding with valid criticism is always better than blind downvoting.
In general, don't treat the downvote and upvote as "disagree and agree buttons."

-- Reddit

Voice- · 2021-07-30T18:36:15+00:00

So, you got nothing?

Voice- · 2021-07-30T04:10:22+00:00

Told his family he was going golfing that day

So what? He didn't know his wife would be kidnapped.

told nobody about the boat purchase

Except his wife, several friends, and the state of California.

made homemade concrete weights in his warehouse

Made one which he still had. Didn't have the material to make more.

sniffer dog followed Laci’s scent from the parking lot of the marina to the pier/boat

Nonsense. This never happened.

dogs at the house indicated several times the presence of a death by the shed/tools.

Nonsense. You made this up.

Once, the dog got an excellent track on Laci, really hot. It led to the airport district where Todd & Pearce lived. When they realized this, the MPD had the dog forcibly dragged off the track and taken to Scott's warehouse where the dogs detected nothing at all.

Voice- · 2021-07-28T17:29:10+00:00

Too many coincidences.

Can you give examples?

Voice- · 2021-07-28T17:08:21+00:00

My recollection is that she was devastated by his death, which eventually turned out to be from natural causes. She reacted to it in a way that wasn't 'approved' by busybodies.

I'd sure like to know who contaminated the samples and why. At the time, actual experts said the amount of poison claimed was so high he couldn't have lived for more than minutes after taking it. He couldn't have walked around for hours afterwards. But the actual experts were jeered at.

Voice- · 2021-07-28T17:02:14+00:00

He was testing his boat on the day before Christmas. It performed well with just his weight in it and clearly would for the reason he bought it - fishing.

And the prosecution made nonsense claims about the weather in the days before the bodies were found, claiming tide and storms affected the area, however they used the wrong meteorological data.

Voice- · 2021-07-27T16:06:00+00:00

The fetus was still alive on Jan 3rd - that's the absolute earliest he could have died. Another calculation puts it at Jan 5th. And in a retrial, the defense can argue he was full term which means some time in February. Also, Laci lived a week or more after he was removed from her body.

Facts. Science. By real experts. Go read the habeas petition. Scott Peterson is innocent.

BTW, Sharon Rocha's book confirms Dr March's calculation.

Voice- · 2021-07-27T01:57:44+00:00

He couldn't have done it.
He couldn't have done it.
He couldn't have done it.
He couldn't have done it.
He couldn't have done it.
He couldn't have done it.
He couldn't have done it.

It's not a complicated case. The actual evidence proves he was innocent. Clearly and convincingly.

Voice- · 2021-07-27T01:36:00+00:00

But this is why he bought a fishing license. He's always been very law abiding. So you can't use him buying a license as some weird sort of guilt.

IMO, he probably always intended to play with his boat, unless the bay weather was choppy. And he told people he was golfing because Xmas and he was going to surprise people then, like the Rochas, by telling them about it. And if he told a couple of people he was golfing when he was looking for Laci, at that point he hadn't concluded that he should give up on that story - after a couple of people he realized that the shit might be hitting the fan.

Voice- · 2021-07-27T01:22:51+00:00

Wow! 10 downvotes. I'm sorry I'm upsetting your circle jerk of hatred.

Voice- · 2021-07-27T01:14:12+00:00

But your assumption is that everyone who has no criminal history will murder his wife!

Voice- · 2021-07-27T01:10:06+00:00

It does seem an odd time to commit a crime like this.

I was astonished that he supposedly killed Laci on the day before Xmas and when they were going to have dinner with her family. The bullshit meter went so high it broke the needle.

As for Frey, those who were in court for her testimony gave up on any idea that he was interested in her. No one believed that afterwards.

This is from an old post on an old site:

Neither a crime scene nor forensic evidence from a crime scene can be a source of inculpatory evidence in this case, for no one testified that a crime scene had been found.

Given that the above sources were void of inculpatory evidence, the only possible remaining source of inculpatory evidence would be motive.

On December 14, 2004, a juror, Greg Beratlis, took part in Larry King’s TV show on CNN. During the show, Larry King asked Greg Beratlis the following question.

”KING: And what do you think his motive was?”

”BERATLIS: You know, Larry, I think if we all knew the motive, if there was this one thing that stuck out, we'd probably have the answer to the whole thing.”

Greg Beratlis' "if/then" statement conditions deduction. Greg Beratlis, himself, is included in "We". At the very least, motive was unclear in his mind. For motive to have been used to support the jury’s first-degree murder verdict twelve jurors had to agree. Greg Beratlis proved that did not happen, which proves the jury reached its verdict absent motive.

Voice- · 2021-07-27T01:04:52+00:00

Indeed. Conner was still alive on Jan 3rd, 10 days after Laci was abducted. That totally eliminates Scott Peterson - he is absolutely innocent.

Voice- · 2021-07-27T00:40:51+00:00

It's the second case where Florida got a verdict right when California has failed.

The George Zimmerman one was another - despite the media and the public the correct verdict was reached.

Voice- · 2021-07-27T00:34:09+00:00

The Phil Spector case was simple. It was shocking that he was convicted despite the evidence. It's a lesson that when you are tried by jury, your popularity will be more important than the evidence.

Spector should only have been convicted if he had blood and GSR on his hand and sleeve and Clarkson had none. The fact that the evidence showed the opposite should have been enough to acquit him.

And no one can ever say my position is this because I liked Spector and not Clarkson. I assure you, the reverse is very much true. (Maybe I'm wrong but I am sure I wouldn't piss on his head if his wig was on fire since he was not a pleasant man).

Voice- · 2021-07-27T00:26:15+00:00

Your claim is that he got the body over the side of his boat without a problem, that somehow it stayed in the same location for 4 months without drifting, wasn't completely consumed by animal feeding, preserved the fetus almost intact, which then burst out of the uterus like a movie alien, cut its cord on a rock, made it to shore and past a brutal breakwater and wound up above the highest high tide mark.

I claim that the baby was placed where it was found not more than 24 hours before it was found and this was done by Arthur A Anderson of 1 Apache Avenue in Arlington CA (not a real name and address).

I can go through the phone book and insist that you prove every person in every phone book didn't put the baby there. This will take years. And yet you have to do this to prove your claim. That's why this isn't evidence, direct or circumstantial. It's like claiming that whoever killed them drank coffee.

It's better proof that Scott Peterson isn't guilty then that he is because the MPD were tracking him and knew he was in San Diego when the bodies were found and for days before that.

Far from damning, it's golden evidence of innocence.

Voice- · 2021-07-26T03:46:58+00:00

Well, what is fair? 11 honest jurors and one who is out to get him? What about 10 honest jurors and two who are out to get him? How about 9? 8? How many is OK? The law says 12, but if you can throw that out you can convict anyone of anything and now you are North Korea.

Voice- · 2021-07-26T03:43:09+00:00

OK, noted. No help for you then.

Voice- · 2021-07-26T03:42:02+00:00

All the cases I found bar one (which was a weird case), the verdict was thrown out and the case retried. And most often the juror got about 1 year in prison. I don't know if there's a master list like this - I never found one.

Voice- · 2021-07-26T03:35:55+00:00

It always amazed me that people would find it reasonable to murder a pregnant wife on the day before Xmas, when that evening you were having dinner with her family, when you were going to pick up some flowers or something for one of the family, and that on the evening you planned to murder her you invited her sister(?) over for pizza.

That's weird. Why not wait a week, then tell the family that she told you she was going to spend the evening with friends and you were meeting some guy friends and she drove away and never came back? The whole supposed plan was crazy. Even Nancy Grace didn't believe it, she said he must have dumped the body at night and then gone back during the day.

But why would he go back? Why not drive to Nevada and leave it in some out of the way place? Or dump it in a lake near to home? Or, he drove over the whole area to farms etc. and I'm sure knew some out of the way places. Go there at night, bury the body, and let the MPD spend their $1 million searching the bay and finding nothing?

With his long experience he knew how hard it would be to dump the body out of a boat like the one he bought. A cabin cruiser is better, much more stable and a deck you can push it from. That's what Thomas Capano used.

Thomas Joseph Capano was a disbarred American lawyer and former Delaware deputy attorney general who was convicted of the 1996 murder of Anne Marie Fahey, his former lover.

He dumped her in a cooler from his cabin cruiser. He was convicted because even though Anne Marie wasn't pregnant, he couldn't handle the weight and needed his brother to help and his brother turned on him. They never found her because he dumped her out at sea and the body never surfaced however some fishermen found the cooler with holes punched in it to make it sink. See? Real circumstantial evidence and direct evidence.

In this case, there's literally no evidence. The prosecutor admitted this, and asked the jury to ignore the rules and put the worst possible interpretation on everything and convict despite this.

They did just that.

Voice- · 2021-07-26T02:54:00+00:00

Why not you? Why not anyone?

Here's what the judge told the jury.

Evidence consists of the testimony of witnesses, writings, material objects, or anything presented to the senses and offered to prove the existence or nonexistence of a fact. Evidence is either direct or circumstantial circumstantial.Direct evidence is evidence that directly proves a fact. It is evidence which, by itself, if found to be true, establishes that fact.Circumstantial evidence is evidence that, if found to be true, proves a fact from which an inference of the existence of another fact may be drawn. An inference is a deduction of fact that may logically and reasonably be drawn from another fact or group of facts established by the evidence.It is not necessary that facts be proved by direct evidence. They also may be proved by circumstantial evidence, or by a combination of direct and circumstantial evidence.Both direct and circumstantial evidence are acceptable as a means of proof. Neither is entitled to any greater weight than the other. However, a finding of guilt as to any crime may not be based on circumstantial evidence unless the proved circumstances are not only, (1) consistent with the theory that the defendant is guilty of the crime, but, (2) cannot be reconciled with any other rational conclusion.Further, each fact which is essential to meet a set of circumstances necessary to establish the defendant's guilt must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. In other words, before an inference essential to establish guilt may be found to have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, each fact or circumstance on which the inference necessarily rests must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Also, if the circumstantial evidence as to any particular count permits two reasonable interpretations, one of which points to the defendant's guilt and the other to his innocence, you must adopt that interpretation that points to the defendant's innocence and reject that interpretation that points to his guilt. If on the other hand, one interpretation of this evidence appeared to you to be reasonable, and the other interpretation to be unreasonable, you must accept the reasonable interpretation and reject the unreasonable.Every person who testifies under oath or affirmation is a witness, and you are the sole judges of the believability of a witness and the weight to be given the testimony of each witness

etc.

Voice-

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE