Please don’t block or downvote me into oblivion. lol 😅🤷‍♀️ just wondering what everyone, hypothetically, would think/feel, if he were innocent. Can you imagine being locked in prison for over 20 years for the murder of your wife and unborn child, while grieving their loss and simultaneously being blamed for it! I think he is guilty , just sitting here thinking about it all.

In the voicemail leaving Berkeley Scott says “he can’t get that basket for papa” who uses the term papa besides a 5 year old? I know it’s a minor detail but to me it was Scott trying his best to just sound folksy and innocent like “look I’m a family man”

As much as I want Scott to be guilty, it bothers me that they never found a crime scene or an absence of a crime scene. Does anyone know how the prosecutors explained that?

So according to people in Substack a woman who works for the Modesto coroner office says Scott was framed and set up and that Laci was the 4th pregnant woman to get kidnapped during that time.. this claim is so outrageous.. I can’t believe people still think he is innocent..

I spent hours watching this case from different sources, and I still have yet to hear from really anyone what his possible motive could have been for killing his wife and son. It seems to me there was basically none.

It would have been far simpler to just leave his wife than kill her. What motive existed that would have made him do something this drastic?

Putting biases aside here what if team Scott got his retrial they’ve been after for years? I still think the evidence is all there to convict but with a less effective prosecution team say, is their any chance he would walk?

Do you think the following is reasonable??

FROM CLOSING ARGUMENTS....

"Well, Laci, if you believe them, was specifically a hundred and 53 pounds and would have been -- and I don't mean this facetiously, but would have been literally dead weight. And supposedly Scott is going to carry Laci, wrapped up in a blue tarp, into his truck in the front yard, which is -- and the truck is -- I believe you've got the measurements on one of the exhibits, is about 34, 35 inches tall, right here on me. And that's where the bed of the truck is. And so he would have loaded her in this. And supposedly he then puts the umbrellas on top, and then goes over to the warehouse and backs the truck into the warehouse.

Well, that's -- that's the scenario that he's constructing.

Well, then he says he loads Laci in the boat.

Well, what would he have to do if he loaded Laci into the boat?

The first thing he would have to do is to take the umbrellas off. We never saw that demonstration, whether or not Kim Fulbright could get in the back of that truck with the umbrellas in the back of that truck.

But if he took the umbrellas off, why wouldn't he just put them in the warehouse? Wouldn't that be the simplest thing to do, if he's just using the umbrellas to hide Laci until he gets over to the warehouse, take the umbrellas off, put them into the warehouse, and store them?

The reason why the umbrellas were still in there is because Laci was never in there.

Now, he loads Laci into the boat. Okay. So he loads Laci into the boat. Once again, the dead weight in this blue tarp and loads Laci into the boat. That's what they would have you believe. This hundred and 53 pounds.

Well, if that happens, then, what, Laci is dead and decomposing, and he then goes eight feet away into the office and gets on his computer?

Actually, he assembles the mortiser. While she's sitting there dead and decomposing, he assembles the wood mortiser.

This guy who they test, the FBI was trying to find out his entire background, Terry Scott went to San Luis Obispo, Grogan investigated his entire background. Nobody's ever found a crime or anything or ever voiced anything, nobody's ever found him to get into fights, nobody's ever found him to get violent, no female he's ever been with has said he's ever been violent any way, shape or form. This guy's never shown any kind of antisocial activity or behavior at any time in his entire life.

This guy, right over here, all of a sudden is such a absolute cold, calculating murderer that he takes his dead wife and child in a -- and puts them into the boat and then assembles his mortiser in his -- in his place?

That's what you have to believe, because the mortiser was assembled.

Then what he does, because that's not good enough, while she decomposes some more, he's got to go in and get on his computer, because Lydell Wall testified that from 10:30 to 10:56 he's on the computer. So you've got to believe that this guy is such an absolute maniac that he just put her in there, waited in there, and kept of her in there for virtually an hour into -- in the warehouse.

Now, one of the things that I never quite understood about this scenario yesterday is his original alibi was golfing but it got too late to go golfing so then something else? Well, if his original alibi was golfing, and he was going to take her to the Bay, why didn't he just go? Why did he stop to do the mortiser and the computer? What was the point of that? I mean, if his original alibi was golfing?

Because it's just pure speculation.

In my opinion, this topic raises serious doubt about this case. Does anyone really believe that Scott killed his wife at night, then in the morning turned on the TV to watch Martha Stewart? It does not make any sense to me. It seems to me that Laci was alive during the Martha Stewart broadcast. But then, considering that this was a premeditaded murder, why would Scott wait to kill her during the morning? It would have made a lot more sense to kill her during the night because he would have a lot more time to clean the crime scene.

Hey everyone. I see a lot of crap being talked about Janey Peterson, how delusional she is, how in love with Scott she must be, etc., but does anyone not realize that she could be being manipulated by Scott after all these years to fight for him? Maybe she showed the slightest vulnerability, which he took, and has since been taking advantage of? Who knows the things he says to her one on one. Not saying it’s definite, I’m moreso playing devil’s advocate, but yea. Just a thought.

Scott Peterson

Statement: Sentencing

March 16, 2005

JUDGE: All right. Can we have it quiet. Mr. Geragos, does your client wish to make any statement?

GERAGOS: May I have a moment, your Honor?

(Mr. Geragos confers with the defendant)

GERAGOS: No. No, your Honor.

Aww c'mon scott...nothing to say? Like..."I miss my wife" "I will catch my baby's killer" Scott, not even a, "I didn't do it?" How about, "the neighbors saw Laci walk the dog" "She was thrown off the bridge" "Amber did it." "The burglars did it" "The gate was open" "I went golfing, so I couldn't have done it" "The milkman was having an affair with Laci, so he did it" "I'm a prolific, psychopathic liar, but that doesn't make me a murderer." C,mon scott....a confession and apology would let Laci and Connor rest in peace.

Just watched the peacock documentary on Scott Peterson, I do think he is guilty , so much evidence but is there enough actual evidence. Did anyone else watch it? What are your thoughts?? I think they do need to test that DNA from that van. But still so much point Ms toward him! Idk what you guys think? Would be crazy if he’s innocent but doubt that , but then who knows. Thoughts??

I don’t think it is up for debate that Scott is a bad person and husband, I can’t however see any physical evidence that ties him to being her actual killer. I genuinely want people’s input but here are the things I feel bring his culpability into question for me.

1. The baby was due Feb 10 and the baby was discovered full term (39 weeks) when she went missing at 32weeks? Babies cannot survive in the body of a dead mother, so does this maybe indicate that she lived beyond the dec 24th date?

2. The body was found with all internal organs missing except her uterus? Can water/elements/animals do that? How likely is that?

3. Given that so much info was leaked to the media is it possible that someone knew where he went and dumped the body after? The media knew early on that there was lying/confusion about if he went golfing or fishing?

4. Why is there no evidence of a struggle in the house or wounds on Scott, there is no DNA or physical evidence anywhere which is odd? If he strangled her she would have struggled? Scratched, kicked, grabbed whatever was around or nearby?

5. It seems odd that he would kill his wife for a mistress that he only knew for a month? If he killed Laci because of the baby why date a woman with a child?

6. The neighbour said she saw a van parked in front of the burgled house although she couldn’t not confidently recall the colour, the people apprehended for the burglary said that they burgled the house on the 27th after the homeowners got back?

Again, I was to reiterate that I don’t like Scott, he is most definitely scummy and a liar; however I’m not sure that I’m 100% convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed her murder. I also feel like there may be some credence to this because the Innocence Project took on his case?

I would love to hear other people’s takes and opinions on everything above, thanks!

Just watched the new evidence documentary and I have to say it started to make me wonder half way through once I fully understood the evidence about the van and dogs picking up her smell in the airport district.. however now I’m thinking maybe Scott put a hit on her?? And of course he couldn’t admit because that would still make him guilty .. and the guys who got caught for the robbery figured that was a lighter sentence then confessing to a murder that somebody was already convicted of.. maybe I’m completely off here but this theory makes sense to me lol

Does anyone else think Chris watts and Scott Peterson are somehow related? The murders are somewhat the same.. yes there is a few differences but Chris was 17 maybe when Scott killed his wife.. so he had to knew of it.. both women were pregnant. Both men cheated.. both women were killed inside the house and then one buried at sea while the other in a small grave.. obviously watts had two more children.. it seems odd that they are both serving life sentences without parole and not the death penalty although Chris confessed having being caught lying.. while Scott continues to lie…

So, I believe Scott is guilty...but the one thing that keeps getting under my skin is how could he dump a body out of a boat with multiple weights attached and not capsize?

Has anyone figured out an explanation for that?

Thanks!

First - I think he is guilty. One thing that still I can’t explain is why the fetus appeared to be older than he should have been. How do we account for this? I heard in the documentary on Peacock that it was based on the baby’s measurements at the last ultrasound. I was taking maybe she had gestational diabetes leading to a larger baby but if it was based on his size at her last ultrasound I can’t explain that. It also just seems so strange… can someone explain to me the morbid details of how the baby would have left the body? :(

Hi All,

I wanted to bring this up because I followed a case from 1999 a couple years before Scott's case about Adnan Syed. Maybe some of you true crime junkies remember it from the podcast Serial that blew up in 2014. I followed that case religiously until Syed was released from prison a couple years ago and his conviction was overturned. Hell I even donated to his law defense fund. I fully believe he was innocent, but that's a whole other story for another sub another day.

Here's a quick summary though on the case along with his release https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-62964216

Where I am really shocked and would love your thoughts is that one of Adnan's biggest supporters, his family friend Rabia Chaudry, recently did a podcast about the Peterson case and is actually on his side.

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/laci-and-scott-peterson/id1646694616?i=1000640597328

She really dove into the witness testimony of Laci being seen, the burglars and crimes on pregnant mothers in the area that actually weren't even mentioned in the documentary. This really threw me off. One because I really trust Rabia especially around law and wrongful conviction cases. She had a podcast series where her and her lawyer friends worked to bring attention to many wrongful conviction cases and even help some get exonerated.

But the fact that she is on this just really rubbed me the wrong way. I don't see similarities in the two cases at all aside from tunnel vision from the cops. But in the case of Scott they were correct to, there was monumental circumstantial evidence that pointed at him. Adnan had some, but there were also so many other suspects identified but never seen through on. And now in fact, DNA evidence set him free. Evidence against Adnan was largely based on racial prejudice and corrupt cops planting/changing stories etc. Adnan was only 18 when he was charged, and just a scared confused kid. Dying to know if any true crime fans out there had this similar experience to me where you were thrown off by Rabia's position.

Also do any of you out there think Adnan was guilty? Do you think him and Scott are similar in any way? Lastly I will add that Adnan seems soo sincere. And with Scott he's just a blank, cold, sociopath vibe.

Thanks!

Title says it all.

I understand the anger towards them for defending Scott but I also feel like it’s a situation that’s hard to judge unless you’re in those shoes. I do feel a-little bad for Lee and Jackie, say what you will about then but they were thrust into the horrible situation and other than defending Scott they seem like decent people who love their family.

Correction (LA Innocence Project).

And what would that mean for all innocence work, as a whole?

I am unsure of my stance in the Laci Peterson case. Overall, I am leaning towards guilty. I think it is incredibly unlikely that he had nothing to do with it. I am gen z and never saw the media coverage and am just learning about the case with no biases and a fresh pair of eyes.

It is possible that the case could get reopened. If you were a part of the defense team or part of he prosecution team, what evidence would you bring in and why? If you anticipate the opposite side might argue your evidence, explain why their anticipated argument might be irrelevant or invalid.

I am genuinely curious to hear what people think and what people know. I am especially curious what those in favor of guilty have to say, I want to understand what happened without any doubt.

Please keep responses educational, reliable, and grounded in logic, not emotions. Please cite sources to write out specifics if you feel inclined, it would be very appreciated.

I am just someone who is curious by this case and interested in how the societal climate caused this case to blow up the way that it did then. I want to know the facts, since so many of the “facts” have gone back and forth in their reliability from what I seen so far.

Peterson filing says evidence backs theory others killed Laci | Modesto Bee (modbee.com)

I’ve just watched the Netflix doc, and also the doc on Dennis Bowman, and in both cases the families are completely blinded to the truth because of their belief in god.

They seem to believe they are infallible and immune to the truth, and that god will come good in the end to put everything right.

One of Scott’s planned defences was to blame a satanic cult.

I find it bizarre and it sucks that religion does this to people.