re: “Scott Peterson, The New Evidence”

quote:

---

Imagine watching some netflix entertainment show and convincing yourself Scott Peterson didn’t kill his wife

---

Imagine convincing yourself you won’t go back to prison

quote:

---

What I’m saying is Modesto decided the day she went missing he was guilty and proceeded from there.

---

That’s standard police procedure since most murders are committed by people they know. They rule out family first.

quote:

---

That’s standard police procedure since most murders are committed by people they know.

---

Procedure or theory? That should never be your procedure to have tunnel vision.

quote:

---

And then put boat in water with people around who said they didn’t see anything large enough in boat to be a body

---

So why he go in the boat

quote:

---

What are those facts exactly?

---

You can look up all of them.

The most compelling ones are that
- he had reason to kill her. He was banging a side piece.
- he bought a boat around the time she died, went fishing in the boat the day she disappeared, and her body happened to be found on the shores of the same body of water where he admitted he was fishing on the day she disappeared just feet (not miles) from where he was fishing.

quote:

---

Except their theory was absolutely ridiculous and made no sense at all. They destroyed evidence to fit it

---

There is no credible evidence that prosecutors improperly destroyed evidence after Scott Peterson’s prosecution. What actually happened is all investigative agencies have policies on document retention. Those policies were followed. They are only challenged when money is available to challenge them.

quote:

---

There is no evidence. There is plenty of reasonable doubt in this case. He may be a POS and had zero care for his wife but I don’t think he did it. If he did Theres not enough to make a conviction for sure.

---

You are gullible. The evidence he did not do it is not persuasive at all. What you are taking issue with is procedures highlighted by defense attorneys who have money as an incentive. They did a terrible job of making the case that Scott did not kill her. They did a very careful job of taking issue with procedures, rather than addressing whether or not time tested procedures were followed.

quote:

---

What I’m saying is Modesto decided the day she went missing he was guilty and proceeded from there.

---

No. They had hundreds of people searching for her. Over a thousand volunteers taking phone calls and putting out flyers before the bodies were found.


He went "fishing" was he went to sink the body.

quote:

---

The "true crime" industry is pretty fricking disgusting.

It's basically just sensationalized click bait garbage exploiting murders for viewers and it masquerades itself as some sort of social cause while generating sympathy for monsters from guiliable morons.

---

99.9% of the time I agree with this. It was 100% before I watched the 4 hours.

So many missteps and manipulation which you don’t need if you have an ironclad case.

It opens up other possibilities she was alive after he left.

How about this as another theory

He paid the burglars to take her out. She was a neighborhood watcher and Scott knew she’d check out a suspicious van in the neighborhood. She confronts them and gets taken/killed in van and van is burned. Scott likely knows the house owners are on vacation and that they had valuables.

Anyway, just another theory. I would like to have had more witnesses called and interviewed. There were 13 who saw a pregnant lady walking dog. These are witnesses who called in within a few days of her missing and not knowing she was dead, trying to help point detectives with information to help find her. They had no motive to call at the time, other than seeing.

Someone mentioned he has the death penalty. That was changed.

Scott was originally sentenced to death, but was later resentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole in 2021 due to juror misconduct claims.

quote:

---

the problem with that is they didn’t follow up on eye witnesses. They did on one though The lady who was best witness was talked to and she was reliable. But after they took her info a week later they called her in to do a “trance”. That is illegal in Cali for criminal cases so that then made her ineligible to testify. But the info she said the week prior was damaging to prosecutor. Was this done intentionally to eliminate her info? It sure seems like it because lawyers know that you can’t do a trance. Thats very sus.

---

Prosecution’s best evidence was that Laci Peterson’s dog was found with the leash on around 10:18 am.

The witnesses that Netflix claims were credible were claiming they saw Laci with her dog after that…and they made those claims days or weeks after the disappearance. They did not claim to know Laci Peterson. Could have been anyone.

I go for a 5-10k step walk every day and see people walking dogs. I’m a former LE investigator who pays attention to out of context sights and behaviors. But if you asked me if I saw a pregnant woman walking a dog days ago or weeks ago, I would think I probably did. But if you asked me if it was a missing person, I doubt I could say it was. And if I did, no one should believe me because the human mind is not likely to be able to accurately assess that after days or weeks.

That’s the reason investigators did not follow up. They only followed up with credible witnesses. Defense attorneys take the opportunity to claim there were credible witnesses that were not interviewed because that is a common defense strategy that dullards believe . They don’t need to convince a jury. They just want to create doubt so they can monetize it for their own ambulance chasing financial benefit.

No one even mentioning the absurdity of this dude buying a 14 foot aluminum boat to drive it 90 miles for a “casual” morning of fishing on Christmas Eve, in the SAN FRANCISCO bay. This wasnt a small lake or pond by his house, it’s an obscenely cold, massive, choppy and unpredictable waterway. Who in the ever living hell does something like that?

And in a shocking coincidence, was the exact same place the body was found.

Literally absurd thinking this dude was innocent.

quote:

---

whole “poking holes into the prosecution’s theory” trick is for housewives.

---

I will say this once for those who refuse to listen. It isn’t “guilty beyond any conceivable doubt you can come up with” it’s “guilty beyond a REASONABLE DOUBT”. That’s how the justice system works.

Otherwise, every defense would be “the aliens did it” and the prosecution wouldn’t be able to disprove that.

These documentaries don’t need to meet the Reasonable requirement so they just throw shite against the wall.

That POS is as guilty as they come. Just explain him heading for the Mexican border with a wig and cash when his wife and baby are missing. I will sit back and listen.