Crime Scott Peterson Innocent?

LogicalInsanity said:
He was clearly going to bolt...the behavior of a clearly guilty man
Click to expand...

It does look bad, no doubt, but you also have to consider that he was already tried and convicted in the media before he attempted to flee. People forget just how big of a story that was. It was easily the #2 criminal case next to OJ. The writing was on the wall. It's easy to say it's the act of a guilty person, but nobody really knows how they would act when staring down the barrel of of a murder conviction. I can easily see a terrified innocent person taking the same ill advised gamble under those circumstances.

What kind of irked me about his demeanor during the whole thing, was that interview he did with...(Barbara Walters?) during one of the fundraisers. It really seemed like a nervous performance, and not very genuine. It actually sort of reminded me of Christine Blasey Ford's testimony, where she was turning on the tremble voice, trying to feign emotion. That interview always stuck out to me.
 
the guy was carrying on with the mistress, professing his love for her, calling her and pretending to be in france for new years after his pregnant wife went missing .. and I believe he sold her car soon after she was gone .. sold something of hers .. he probably forgot about her the minute she was gone .. cold hearted, no fks given .. then they find her in the same area where he went fishing, a long distance from their place .. are you kidding me ? .. he killed that poor girl .. columbo would've had a field day with scott peterson lol
 
Did he ever claim that someone was trying to frame him? Because he should've if all they had was circumstantial evidence
 
100% guilty in my eyes. But it could be one of those cases where everyone knows it but there isn’t enough evidence and he walks on a technicality.

Is he appealing again or something? He’s been on death row nearly two decades now. Isn’t it time for them to execute him?
 
faustian said:
Did he ever claim that someone was trying to frame him? Because he should've if all they had was circumstantial evidence
Click to expand...

I think his lawyers made cases for other suspects, but nothing panned out and they weren't solid. They just made the case that the police honed in on Peterson way too early, and ignored other leads. There are witnesses who claimed to have seen Lacy that morning, but according to them, the investigators never really gave them the time of day, or followed up on anything.

There is one wild theory out there that she was kidnapped and killed by Satanists in a sacrificial ritual. It sounds silly, but it's pretty interesting if you look into it.
 
HereticBD said:
There is one wild theory out there that she was kidnapped and killed by Satanists in a sacrificial ritual. It sounds silly, but it's pretty interesting if you look into it.
Click to expand...
hqdefault.jpg
 
HereticBD said:
It does look bad, no doubt, but you also have to consider that he was already tried and convicted in the media before he attempted to flee. People forget just how big of a story that was. It was easily the #2 criminal case next to OJ. The writing was on the wall. It's easy to say it's the act of a guilty person, but nobody really knows how they would act when staring down the barrel of of a murder conviction. I can easily see a terrified innocent person taking the same ill advised gamble under those circumstances.

What kind of irked me about his demeanor during the whole thing, was that interview he did with...(Barbara Walters?) during one of the fundraisers. It really seemed like a nervous performance, and not very genuine. It actually sort of reminded me of Christine Blasey Ford's testimony, where she was turning on the tremble voice, trying to feign emotion. That interview always stuck out to me.
Click to expand...


Good points.

Relating to your 2nd point,

Although I would have voted against confirming Kavanaugh, that entire ordeal made me ill.

Not because of the allegations, but because we were all supposed to believe Powell, we were all supposed to assume kavanaugh was guilty....

And that dr. Powell's testimony was 100 percent believable .

This was probably the 2nd most disgusting instance of trial by media in the last 5 years
 
faustian said:
Did he ever claim that someone was trying to frame him? Because he should've if all they had was circumstantial evidence
Click to expand...
This was one of those cases where sp needed to be proven innocent not guilty. The defense couldn't afford to create an alternative scenario. They had their hands full explaining the circumstantial evidence.
 
Caveat said:
He was all I could think of while watching Ben Affleck in Gone Girl, though I've never read any documentation confirming that influence.

Same burly mannerisms and clumsy speech.
Click to expand...

Oh' yeah, there is no doubt in my mind that Fincher was heavily influenced by the Peterson case while making that flick. Maybe the book was too, I don't know, but the similarities in appearance and circumstances of Ben Affleck's character and Peterson could not possibly have been a mere coincidence.
 
I wish I could have seen his face when the cops opened up his car and he basically had a full "murder my mistress too and flee the country in disguise" kit.
 
Last edited:
Fawlty said:
The direct evidence that supports the circumstantial case is really strong.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's kind of weird this being brought up, considering the evidence demonstrating his guilt is stronger than is the case in most murder trials imo. The Fugitive/Shawshank-style wrongful murder of a spouse conviction is super, super rare.

EDIT: Also, I thought I remembered him looking different. I remembered him as a blonde-haired, chubby Guy Fieri-type. Dude looks like Ben Affleck.
 
Last edited:
Maybe some of our Sherdog lawyers can weigh in on this but I've never really understood the idea (or popular misconception) that evidence carries less weight because it is "circumstantial". I understand that circumstantial evidence requires some degree of inference but some inferences seem pretty compelling.

As I understand it, if there are witnesses saying they heard screaming from my neighbor's house, and then saw me running out of the house with a bloody axe, and a forensic expert testifies that bloody fingerprints matching my fingerprints were found around my neighbor's dead body, all that evidence is technically classified as circumstantial.

What I'm getting at is that in the Peterson case I constantly see the statement that the evidence is purely circumstantial as if it is somehow exculpatory and I think it's ridiculous. There was never a plausible alternative explanation for the circumstantial evidence against Peterson that I'm aware of. The idea that Peterson had already been convicted in the public's eye, while I agree with it, is meaningless to me as it is only because anyone with a functional brain and reasoning ability who was aware of the evidence could come to a logical conclusion.

So basically yeah, fuck that guy.
 
Trotsky said:
EDIT: Also, I thought I remembered him looking different. I remembered him as a blonde-haired, chubby Guy Fieri-type. Dude looks like Ben Affleck.
Click to expand...

That was his "disguise" when he fled.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,236,710
Messages
55,436,384
Members
174,774
Latest member
kilgorevontrouty

Share this page

Back
Top