- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: “Scott Peterson, The New Evidence”
Posted on 7/19/26 at 2:55 pm to OU Guy
Posted on 7/19/26 at 2:55 pm to OU Guy
quote:
One other thing, the boat is a low draft one. To push out all that weight would cause it to tip in most cases, as water was not calm
They proved through recreation that it was impossible to use that boat and those weights and not sink the boat.
Yet the judge decided that that testimony and video would not be allowed. IIRC it was offered to recreate it IRL and was told no again.
2
Posted on 7/19/26 at 2:56 pm to Tigertittie
This was posted by The Modesto Bee during trial. Her prior testimony ended up not used because the hypnosis cancelled it out. defense thinks it was intentional to eliminate damaging testimony.
quote:
Investigators handling the double-murder case against Scott Peterson used an increasingly rare and legally risky tactic by interviewing a witness using "hypnosis techniques," legal observers said Tuesday. "They're taking a risk," said Dr. David Spiegel, associate chairman of psychiatry at Stanford University. "There must be some reason why they want to take that risk." The jeopardy stems from a state law passed in 1984 that severely restricts the use of information from a hypnotized witness at trial -- including limiting the testimony to matters the person recalled before the hypnosis. The law was in response to a 1982 California Supreme Court ruling saying that "most experts agree that hypnotic evidence is unreliable because a person under hypnosis can manufacture or invent false statements." Read more at: LINK
Posted on 7/19/26 at 3:03 pm to RemyLeBeau
Info I read says she was 154 lbs.
To make a body sink you need at least that much but article said 3 times the weight ti keep it anchored with moving tides and such.
I think the cement anchor he made was small, and supposedly if he made 4 of them the total weight was around 35 or so lbs. that would not be enough. But even adding 45 lbs makes this 200lbs of dead weight to carry in seas and waves and then move it over the side alone.
To make a body sink you need at least that much but article said 3 times the weight ti keep it anchored with moving tides and such.
I think the cement anchor he made was small, and supposedly if he made 4 of them the total weight was around 35 or so lbs. that would not be enough. But even adding 45 lbs makes this 200lbs of dead weight to carry in seas and waves and then move it over the side alone.
Posted on 7/19/26 at 3:16 pm to RemyLeBeau
quote:
They proved through recreation that it was impossible to use that boat and those weights and not sink the boat.
They did not. It was similar to the demonstration that OJ’s glove did not fit. It was a theatrical demonstration, not an evidentiary exploration.
The boat’s load capacity was 600-800 pounds. More than enough to transport 2 humans and a boat motor.
But let’s say the prosecution’s hypothesis about disposal of the body was wrong. Did he still likely kill her by disposing of her body from the land area where modern science now suggests was the more likely disposal location?
I’ll go out on a limb and say he killed her and disposed of her body from the land area where science says was the most likely location. Do we need a new trial to have a jury agree to the exact location where she was dumped?
Posted on 7/19/26 at 3:40 pm to Willie Stroker
quote:
They did not. It was similar to the demonstration that OJ’s glove did not fit. It was a theatrical demonstration, not an evidentiary exploration.
The boat’s load capacity was 600-800 pounds. More than enough to transport 2 humans and a boat motor.
But let’s say the prosecution’s hypothesis about disposal of the body was wrong. Did he still likely kill her by disposing of her body from the land area where modern science now suggests was the more likely disposal location?
I’ll go out on a limb and say he killed her and disposed of her body from the land area where science says was the most likely location. Do we need a new trial to have a jury agree to the exact location where she was dumped?
But that would bring up different questions which prosecutors didn’t explore.
If in new spot only a trail goes to it. You can drive a car down it but in broad daylight you would be seen. And even once there you would have to carry body and weights a long ways to get to the point if that land, over rough terrain.
And then did he pull his pickup and boat down that trail in daylight? And that trail thins so did he back up his pickup and boat all that ways (long ways).
And if not pulling his boat when did he have a chance? If he put his boat in water and left dock there is no time. Keep in mind this would be around noonish, not nighttime.
Posted on 7/19/26 at 4:15 pm to OU Guy
What are you talking about? A simple weight belt is all you need.
Your telling me if you let all the air out your lungs it takes equal weight to sink?
Your telling me if you let all the air out your lungs it takes equal weight to sink?
Posted on 7/19/26 at 4:25 pm to Obi Wan Ryobi
quote:
Women all get convinced by This Neat Trick.
/thread
Posted on 7/19/26 at 4:31 pm to OU Guy
quote:
to carry in seas and waves and then move it over the side alone.
that reminds me they recreated it on a pond and couldn't dump the body without sinking the boat.
Now go to the bay and it likely sinks just from the onboard weight
Posted on 7/19/26 at 4:33 pm to OU Guy
quote:
My original thinking back then was guilty as hell. And I’ve maintained that hard core stance ever since.
I've never thought the evidence they had against him was convincing.
Posted on 7/19/26 at 4:39 pm to imjustafatkid
Evidence is very circumstantial but I think it is very damning
He guilty 100%
He guilty 100%
Posted on 7/19/26 at 4:44 pm to OU Guy
What about Drew? Does he deserve another trial too?
Posted on 7/19/26 at 4:44 pm to GatorPA84
quote:
very circumstantial
IMO you need more than this to put someone away for life or death.
Posted on 7/19/26 at 4:45 pm to OU Guy
What's been happening to Peterson in prison? Has he been getting treated badly due to being a baby killer?
Posted on 7/19/26 at 4:59 pm to GatorPA84
I don’t care exactly how it played out at every last step. It’s clear that he did it even if I can’t rule out alien abduction
A well funded 4 hour piece from the defense team 25 years later isn’t moving the needle
A well funded 4 hour piece from the defense team 25 years later isn’t moving the needle
Posted on 7/19/26 at 5:32 pm to OU Guy
Watched an hours so far...Nothing has changed my mind that he is guilty. And the fact that he was cheating doesn't factor in...many men cheat and don't murder their wife and almost newborn baby.
I will report back when done.
I will report back when done.
Posted on 7/19/26 at 5:38 pm to JodyPlauche
quote:
JodyPlauche
Happy 10000 posts!
Posted on 7/19/26 at 6:04 pm to JodyPlauche
quote:
Watched an hours so far...Nothing has changed my mind that he is guilty. And the fact that he was cheating doesn't factor in...many men cheat and don't murder their wife and almost newborn baby.
I will report back when done.
Thank you for an honest reply. For me it really got going in hour 2 and 3. And the experts in hr 4.
I’m still over 50% he did it but have so many problems with the case.
Posted on 7/19/26 at 7:08 pm to OU Guy
quote:
Thank you for an honest reply. For me it really got going in hour 2 and 3. And the experts in hr 4. I’m still over 50% he did it but have so many problems with the case.
Either they excluded him or it’s theater at this point
By your own admission of being more likely than not guilty after being spoon fed the most favorable version possible for several hours and decades disassociated from the the prosecution speaks volumes to it not being all that persuasive in reality
Posted on 7/19/26 at 7:16 pm to NoSaint
quote:
Either they excluded him or it’s theater at this point
By your own admission of being more likely than not guilty after being spoon fed the most favorable version possible for several hours and decades disassociated from the the prosecution speaks volumes to it not being all that persuasive in reality
Maybe true. The problem is if it was someone else like the burglars, that was never explored in depth. So of course there isn’t an equal amount of info to go less than 50% guilty.
What id for example they had focused on the burglars, and the reports of people seeing them and the burned van with bloody mattress? The problem now is that wasn’t done so I can’t evaluate info thats missing. One of them is dead and they could not find the other (he did his time and got released). He would never speak to anyone even if they found him.
It had to be done then. And prosecution never told defense about burned van and mattress - they found out years later.
Posted on 7/19/26 at 7:25 pm to OU Guy
There was a burglary right across the street and a retired law enforcement officer saw a pregnant lady being pushed into it but didn’t think much until he heard a pregnant lady was missing and called it into police.
WFT? So he didn't think a pregnant lady forced into a vehicle was noteworthy? That discredits him.
WFT? So he didn't think a pregnant lady forced into a vehicle was noteworthy? That discredits him.
Page 6 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News