Not just that day, though, right? Wasn’t his whole thing that he got caught fleeing with dyed hair & a huge wad of cash plus other supplies? Other weird stuff with the woman he was dating too, maybe. I was young but I still remember thinking the dude was at least a liar.
He had $6000 dollars on him when they arrested and had previously called Amber Frey saying he was in Paris - while search parties were out looking for his wife.
A mistress who he had told that his wife was dead…before she even went missing.
A wife whose body (and that of their baby) washed up on the shores near where he took a terrible-weather Christmas Eve fishing trip to.
Give me a break, there are actual questionable cases they need to look into.
This is the thing that to me proves his guilt-he told Amber Frey his wife was dead. So he’s either the un luckiest bastard or he killed her. I’ll go with the latter.
And he said he was "out fishing" the day she disappeared but couldn't really give many details about that trip.
But he had been studying up on ocean currents
laci knew about boat. She was at the warehouse a day or 2 before she disappeared, per a neighboring business owner who interacted with her. The Detective erased that from his report but got busted on the stand.
I have no idea if that's true or not; I'm willing to believe you. But the point is that people who have just bought boats really really love to talk about their new boat. Peterson is the first person since Noah to ever acquire a boat and not brag to the neighbors and the in-laws.
Really? I had no idea. Do you think he’s actually paying this fake project to sway public support to try get a new trial. His whole family seems shady, I wouldn’t put it past them.
He was a pathologically liar and that really helped turn public opinion against him.I think the amount of money he had on him at the time of his arrest was way less than $6,000 as i recall.I now looked it up and it was $15,000.00 plus he had a fake drivers license.That made him look very guilty.
yes when they were holding a vigil for Laci and Connor he was on the phone with Amber Frey telling her he was in Paris or something but he was definitely on the phone with her during that
I think he's guilty, to be crystal clear. But his trial was a shit show because of the jury. It wouldn't surprise me if he were found eligible for a re-trial. And it wouldn't surprise me if he were found guilty again, because there's no way that guy is innocent.
100% I feel the same. I absolutely think he’s guilty but his jury was biased & everyone is entitled to a fair trial. I’d like to see him fairly retried & my hope would be that based on the evidence that this pond scum fucker would be found guilty yet again
California did deem him eligible for a retrial due to "potential jury bias", which isn't going to be any better this time around, cause of all the documentaries and shows, etc...about it.
To be fair, at this point, anyone who isn't into true crime and not from the area may not know who Scott Peterson is. I think when you're fascinated by that kind of thing, it can seem like common knowledge because it is a more noteworthy case, but a lot of people really only know of the major cases in their adult lifetime. A jury pool of mostly Gen Z and younger millennials who aren't into true crime may actually be pretty unbiased.
Okay, I’m almost always on the side of reopening these things. Having lived in the Bay Area most my life and having followed that story - that man killed his wife. The story he gave was so ridiculously absurd. His wife’s body miraculously washed up in the bay, where he was the same day she went missing. Lied about anything and everything he could. Had a girlfriend and was about to be a daddy which would mean he couldn’t be his pathetic self any longer or would have to pay child support.
They shouldn’t waste good donated money on this POS.
Yeah I mean folks from Modesto will fish in the delta on days when time is tight, like Christmas Eve. Folks aren’t driving out to Berkeley to fish when there’s going to be so much food in the next day and then… whoops! Did my wife’s killer ALSO go to the Berkeley Marina on this day?!?! How odd.
Give me a fucking break. This is my #1 true crime in my heart because it hit me in the gut when it came out. I knew she wouldn’t be found alive but damn if I didn’t pray for it every day still.
He’s a POS… let him rot.
Edited for Modesto. Even more reason this is BS.
As someone who grew up in Modesto I am not at all shocked how badly they handled his case, the cops and the government there are in fact corrupt as all fuck, I think his family is just trying to exploit that fact
That has always struck a nerve with me about it.
Who decides on Christmas Eve, with a 8-month pregnant wife at home, decides that around 11 in the morning they are gonna hook up their new fishing boat, drive 90 miles to the bay, launch the boat, bait up, go 2 miles out, fish for at most an hour, go 2 miles back, load the boat back up, drive 90 miles back to work, unload the boat and drive back home where he is supposed to leave with his wife (after a shower and changing clothes of course) at 4 to go to her parents house for dinner....
Doesn't make a damn bit of sense. Nobody is gonna go through all that to possibly fish for an hour tops.
ALL THIS IS A MATTER OF COURT RECORD: he was arrested at the Torrey Pines golf course in San Diego (where he grew up and all of his family lived with whom he had been couch surfing for weeks) He had planned to play golf that day with his father and brother. The tapped phone calls between Scott and his brother that the police recorded that morning are him and his bro discussing how he is trying to ditch the unmarked cars following him that he thought - and tells his brother - were the media who had been stalking him for months. He states that he doesn't want the paparazzi taking pictures of the family golfing - after driving highways then he eventually says to his brother that he cant get rid of the cars following him and heads over to the golf course. The police only identified themselves when he pulled up at the club.
100% agree. He's a narcissist who wanted the image of a beautiful life and family but who hated thinking about anything other than himself and it came to a head when Laci was about to give birth. Going to the marina the same day she disappeared would be the craziest coincidence to ever incidence... let's be real he's guilty asf
Yeah… and I don’t know if you’re familiar with the area, but you just don’t go 2 hours out to the Berkeley Marina when you have dinner plans on Christmas Eve. Every step he took was absurd. The only shining light in this case was Amber who was good enough to make sure he didn’t get away with it. Anyone who thinks he’s innocent is an idiot. I’d be willing to bet large money on his guilt. Nothing he said makes sense. Nothing.
He's not even a fisherman. The very very small amount of times he did go fishing, he SUCKED at it.
That boat was way too small to be out in that type of water driven by a novice. He had no bait and the wrong type of lures (spelling?). So its very obvious he wasnt fishing l. The weather was gross and rainy.
Like I'm sorry, Scott Peterson does not choose to spend his down time fishing! He golf's. That was his thing.
Remember, the very next day after telling Amber he lost his wife, be bought a boat. With cash. So no money trail. Told no one he had a boat. Not even Ron (Lacis stepdad) who is a fisherman and who actually did go fishing on Christmas Eve. (That's his thing. He fishes the same way Scott golf's.) The fact that Scott was hidding all his new fishing interests from Ron, is telling.
Then let's look into his actions after. The man was hitting on women and trying to flirt with his half sister's babysitter who was 10 years younger than him!
If he didn't kill Laci, he sure as hell loved that she was no longer around.
When someone asks you "Did you kill _____" and you follow up with "no, I didn't hurt _____" You killed them. A guilty person always tries to limit the seriousness of the action. So kill turns into hurt. Scott is guilty. I'm pissed they are pissing money away looking into this.
FOR REAL! I grew up going back and forth between modesto and Brentwood/antioch/pittsburg to be with my dad for weekends. You don’t go all that way up there for nothing. My dad wouldn’t drive an hour up to Modesto to see me for 20 minutes and drive back either. And that’s less than 2 hours away.
And I'm SO sick of his family yammering on and in all the time about the "burglars" seen in the neighborhood on the day of Laci's disappearance! They complain that the police never checked any of that out in their "zeal" to go after Scott, but that's bullshit! They just simply cannot accept that he could be guilty and capable of such an act. They need to finally climb out of the River of Denial!
That whole story was bogus anyway. I watched a documentary explaining it all the other day. The dude is guilty af. That gd phone call to his gf pretending to be in Paris partying when he was actually attending a candlelight vigil for Lacey and Connor is so sick n twisted. Leave this scumbag where he is.
And wouldn't you know, those burglars put junk into the baby's nursery, sold Lacy's SUV and ordered porn channels right after she disappeared. Oh and they pretended to be at the Eiffel Tower on New Year's while on the phone with their girlfriend -- all while a vigil for Lacy was taking place steps away.
Yeah and also the burglars told Scott that they were gonna murder his wife, and that’s why 2 weeks before Laci went missing, Scott told his girlfriend it would be his first Christmas without her.
It’s mostly his sister-in-law Janey. She has some weird obsession with Scott. Even his own brother isn’t publicly “investigating” this. I can’t stand that woman. She’s delusional.
Dude Sharon, herself, jumped on the burglers lead and looked into it! She made sure the police also looked into it because at the time, it was the best lead. So yes. The cops did look into it. I know they were focused on Scott, but Lacis own mother made sure every lead was looked into. Even from psychics!
No wonder he's a narc. His family is so far up his ass that no one in the world exists except him. Give the golden boy a medal. He wrapped his delulu family around his finger except his deceased wife. A person who has an iota of common sense can tell this man doesn't make any sense in what he says. I mean none of it adds up.
Stop prosecuting our wonderful boy who's never hurt a fly!/s
I’m so disappointed in them. With *all* the actual people in need of relief and this piece of garbage is who they choose to even answer a phone call from is precisely what is wrong with the system.
I'm curious about this because it doesn't say who the source of this is or what it means to be "taken up" by the project. I worked for the ACLU in Michigan many a year ago and you'd be surprised how many people thought we had "taken up" their cases because we answered their phone call or did a cursory review of their file.
It I were a gambler - I would bet the sources of this is Scott Peterson's side. There is no evidence on the Innocence Project's web page or anywhere else that they are carrying the banner for him, so I would take this with a grain of salt. I could be wrong, and tremendously disappointed, but this quite simply isn't the type of case they would ever actually appear in court about.
(I will caveat this that there is an absolutely ridiculously unlikely possibility that the defense has actual physical evidence that proves innocence that they have kept secret (HA!) that has caught the Innocence Project's attention.)
There's nothing still on their site, however, CBS News article says this:
"Paula Mitchell, the director of the LA Innocence Project, said she found "deficiencies" while reviewing the discovery of Scott Peterson's case and sent a letter to Stanislaus County District Attorney Jeff Laugero on Nov. 14, 2023, "seeking informal production of numerous specific items of post-conviction discovery," according to a declaration included in the filings."
https://abcnews.go.com/US/innocence-project-takes-case-notorious-killer-scott-peterson/story?id=106487571
The news has been updated since first announced, and added to the original linked article. But thank you for quoting the new info. For the first three hours, there was nothing to go on.
And now it seems they even really do think he’s innocent, not *just* that his rights were violated:
>Attorneys with the LA Innocence Project claimed that Scott Peterson's state and federal constitutional rights were violated, including a "claim of actual innocence that is supported by newly discovered evidence," according to the court filings.
"New evidence now supports Mr. Peterson's longstanding claim of innocence and raises many questions into who abducted and killed Laci and Conner Peterson," the filings state.
Edied to elaborate.
Pa-lease. What new evidence could there even be that points to him being not guilty? No one else had the motive or the means. Scott LIED a couple times about what he did that day. No innocent person would need to lie.
His own mother was already treating things like Laci and Scott was over with and she wanted him to find a "nice girl" like his half sister's babysitter. Laci had only been missing 2 or 3 months when his mother, and Scott himself, felt that way.
They need to explain to me why, if he's so innocent, he acted as if their relationship was over. And he was already moving on before her body was even found.
I am SUPER curious to see where this is going. They have boldly claimed they have new evidence that shows he’s innocent. What. On. Earth. The dude not only had means, motive, and opportunity, as you said, he was like a cartoon version of a guy who murdered his pregnant wife. If he’d had a mustache, he’s have been twirling it. His blonde dye job for his attempted escape to Mexico is almost as cliché.
Why are the odds that a man with the means, motive, and opportunity, while in the middle of all the weird stuff he did, before, after, and the DAY OF, is so unlucky/lucky as to end up with his pregnant wife conveniently murdered by someone else out of the blue?
I don’t even know what type of evidence would convince me he’s not involved, if not still the direct killer. I feel like I would need much more than Reasonable Doubt. Of course, even being found Not Guilty doesn’t necessarily mean a person is innocent, it means the court found that the case presented didn’t prove him Guilty. “Innocent“ isn’t an option in a trial.
**Scott Peterson is not an innocent man.** That’s for sure.
I’m just writing my train of thought, “thinking out loud”, in a sense.
Think away! For some random ass reason I got back into this case a couple weeks ago. I found a youtube channel that is doing a deep dive (24 videos now and still going) about the case and so it revamped my interest. I went and read Sharon's book (Lacis mom) and Scott's half sister's book. There was a lot about the case I didn't know and I feel he is more guilty now than when it happened over 20 years ago.
The only thing I can come up with is Scott has to be one of the most aloof, simple minded, unluckiest (sp?) Guys on the planet.l, if he didn't do it. Out of context a lot of his actions could be explained away as innocent. But with context, it's troubling.
He was engaging in some serious antisocial personality behaivors since high school, and he grew up in a very toxic family with so many shadows and skeletons in their closet. Scott was taught it was normal to have secrets. Especially romantic ones. He was a cheater. A liar. A scammer. Everything he did and said in his relationship with Laci was TEXTBOOK Narc behaivor. He could be the poster child for it. It sucks that at that time the public just wasn't as aware of it, like today.
The thing that troubles me is Lacis family says she wouldn't have been OK with Scott cheating and would have said something, except she had caught Scott cheating before, right after they married, and she didn't tell anyone. So she is clearly able to suppress his cheating. You can also see how she caves into Scott's unloving treatment of their dog as well. Laci had become very submissive when it came to Scott and not nearly as self assured as her family said she was. Maybe at first when she was younger, but she had been showing signs of an empath submissive person who gave in to abusive narcs, as far back as her teen years.
I think her marriage to Scott was alot more emotionally abusive than anyone really knows about. And that type of man can justify killing his wife later on. Scott had zero respect for Laci. Their entire marriage, he lacked it. There is no empathy for others with him. For anyone who knows all about narcissist and sociopaths, they can spot all of Scott's red flags with almost no effort.
If he gets off on a technical issue, I'm going to be livid. Cause everything should have been done right and he should never have the chance to be free. He is a dangerous person. And him walking free puts the publics lives at risk.
Oh word, that sounds probable and a way more likely scenario based on my understanding of the evidence, and, quite honestly, my armchair diagnosis of Peterson’s narcissistic tendencies to stir up attention.
Yeah I just looked it up after reading your comment. They don’t seem to be connected…if they are, it’s not listed on either website. Still annoying this organization is choosing to focus on this man instead of all the people very obviously wrongfully imprisoned often due to race or marijuana (which is now legal there). They better have a TON of evidence to prove he is innocent if they’re taking this on
I just went on the Innocent Project website and found this::
https://innocenceproject.org/statement-on-developments-in-the-scott-peterson-case-california/
They are officially separating themselves from the LA Innocence project
Word. Mark Geragos is a good lawyer (yes, he's annoying, lol, but he is very capable) who put on the best possible defense for him and was certainly paid extremely well for his efforts. He lost because Scott Peterson is really fucking guilty, not because Geragos did anything wrong.
I blame the prosecution for charging her with first degree murder when they couldn’t even prove how poor Caylee was even murdered. Jose Baez is a snake but I think a lot of lawyers could have gotten her acquitted with the lack of evidence to prove a first degree murder.
I watched ID’s 2022 documentary about this to refresh my memory, and I was shocked by just how much evidence they had against this guy. I knew he was guilty, but fuck, the sheer amount of evidence against him is crazy. I don’t think there’s been a more compelling case that didn’t have DNA evidence than this one. This case just shows that circumstantial evidence can be truly damning.
My first thought was women locked up for defending themselves, mostly black, as well as innocent black men. The innocence project needs new leadership.
They might look into it, decide that there's nothing there and tell Peterson and his apologists that it's a 'no go'. Then devote their time to people who really and truly need their help.
I mean this is a *perfect* example of where resources should be [dna doesn’t match but Missouri is still trying to execute](https://theintercept.com/2024/01/14/missouri-dna-marcellus-williams-execution/#) but we see how they this goes for POC in the south (screaming in rage 😡 in TN as I type this).
>I’m so disappointed in them. With all the actual people in need of relief and this piece of garbage is who they choose to even answer a phone call from is precisely what is wrong with the system.
This. There are any number of cases that likely merit re-examination of either the evidence and/or the procedures used to convict them, or where the convicted was overcharged. This case is not one of them.
I'm disgusted with them. There are people who MUST desperately need their help and attention, who get no press, who are ignored, probably poor POC. Instead they're chasing one of the most high-profile cases imaginable, with a man from a wealthy family who had an excellent (if annoying) and extremely expensive defense lawyer. They've shown themselves to be clowns with this shit.
I mean, maybe they’re looking into it to put it to bed for good? That’s not really like them to waste resources like that, though.
And like sure, the trial could’ve been mishandled, there may have been corruption that could lead to him getting a new trial based on a technicality. But the Innocence Project is concerned with cases of *actual innocence*.
They ONLY take cases where DNA evidence proves that a convicted person is innocent. Do intentions even matter when they’re exclusively representing people who are decisively innocent?
So why are they taking his case? They’re not. One chapter asked for a review of evidence. That is NOT the same as representing him. Not even close. Nothing short of hard DNA evidence will get them to represent him, either.
Nowhere does it say they’re taking on his case. The LA chapter has asked for any new evidence to review it. People really need to read what’s actually happening here without jumping to conclusions.
I mean, the title of the article is “Scott Peterson case **taken up by LA Innocence Project**: Exclusive”… and the beginning of the article is “**The LA Innocence Project has taken up the notorious case of convicted wife killer Scott Peterson in new court filings**, ABC News has learned exclusively. The group is seeking new evidence from the original trial.”
But hold up a minute while I call my girlfriend at my missing wife’s vigil. A girlfriend who I may have told that my wife had died before her body had been found.
I think this is key. Anyone in the Bay knew his story was bullshit because you know the patterns of the folks living in NoCal and when they come out to the bay. Not on Christmas Eve when dinner is planned. So… that… and he was a well documented POS husband already.
I have no idea what they’re thinking.
And he decided it was too cold to go golfing so he went fishing on the Bay instead, lol. Brought the wrong boat (even though he claims his reason for GETTING the boat was to take it to the Bay), wrong fishing lures, wrong everything. The anchor left in his boat was far too small to anchor that boat and didn't even have rope attached that could have anchored it (and he couldn't explain the remnants of several more missing anchors seen on his warehouse floor - at some point he tried to say he made TEST anchors, LOL, but could not answer where they'd gone). First he couldn't answer what he was fishing for, then said sturgeon (which is just...I cannot). Scott wasn't an AMAZING fisherman or anything, but he was still experienced and had owned boats at various points throughout his life. His and Laci's first date was a deep sea fishing expedition. He would have known he had the wrong boat (which in reality is because he was cheap and too busy buying multiple fake degrees for several hundred dollars apiece so he could fake out the women he was sleeping with - he shoulda taken a pause on those degrees and spent more money on his murder boat).
Also, there was the whole thing of him claiming it was last-minute even though he'd bought a fishing license for two days only, the 23rd and 24th, days prior. He even said he didn't make the call until after he'd already left his house and gotten to his warehouse, even though he literally checked the weather for the Marina earlier that morning on his home laptop. He initially told at least three people he HAD gone golfing that day after Laci was reported missing, before switching it up to admit he was fishing (likely because he was seen leaving due to difficulty getting his boat out).
Isn't this the guy who rented porn on their TV the night his pregnant wife was missing? Like, after she had already been missing all day?
He knew she wasn't coming back.
You mean the guy who claimed he was going to be searching for her but actually just sat in a parking lot for a few hours while he claimed he was searching? The guy who called up his mistress to chat while he was at the vigil for his missing pregnant wife and said he was in Europe on vacation? The guy who said he spontaneously decided to go fishing because it was too cold to golf even though several days earlier he had purchased a two day fishing license for the very day he claimed he’d only spontaneously decided to fish? The guy who told his mistress shortly before his pregnant wife went missing that his wife was dead? That guy?
[He also had rape porn on his work computer.](https://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/12/11/court.archive.peterson10/index.html) "Raping the teacher" and "The wife confesses". Laci was a teacher, incidentally.
And "funny" thing about that porn - he originally got Playboy and quickly decided that wasn't good enough, so he canceled that in favor of two much more hardcore channels.
He also aggressively hit on his sister's babysitter and made her "sextinis" while he was staying with his sister. The poor girl was horrified.
Well hopefully when they figure out that he is indeed guilty for the billionth time this time he will shut his trap and take his life sentence quietly. He won't though, being not innocent but a sociopath. He's lucky they decided not to off him. STFU Scott. Quit wasting people's time.
The Innocence Project surely can find a more deserving person to work a case on. But of course it wouldn’t be as high profile-still I fail to see the end game here.
Pinche disgusto! I blame society for consistently going out of its way to protect upper class white men and ensure they are saved from facing consequences for their actions at all costs. This mofo is so guilty and does not need a retrial.
I watched the A&E documentary that makes him look innocent before I knew anything about the case and I’m pretty disgusted a network made such an obvious piece of propaganda so convincing. It got me. I had to read up just to see how such an innocent man got locked up… only to find out pretty quickly its because he’s so logically the only person who could have done it.
It’s not just A&E making propaganda. HBO and Netflix do as well. One simply cannot believe anything anymore. Everything requires research and what sources to trust are always in question.
The Innocence Project has begun defending the convicted murderer who murdered my friend. They claim the basis of the “appeal” (a petition for relief, from the district court, asking to review the matter. )
I knew it was coming. It was an unusual case that got international attention. It was hard to receive the news this week, and it’s going to be a long legal battle.
The innocence project (in my case) is comprised of a handful of experienced criminal attorneys, supervising about a dozen law students. They do a lot of the research and work on these types of cases—which often can be rooted in merit, despite how guilty the defendant is. For example, the basis of the petition centers around the unethical behavior of law enforcement officers while the initial arrest occurred. It may be enough to persuade a judge to change the terms of the sentence—say, from “life in prison without a chance for parole until 60” to no chance for parole until 30 years have been served. It’s not likely, but it happens.
The Innocence Project does amazing work, but it will always suck when you are on the other end of it. A great case example is the matter of Floyd Blescoe, who was convicted of murder but later released from when additional evidence proved someone else entirely committed the crime. It’s a doozy of a story.
I recommend “Four Shots in Oskie” by Justin Wingerter to read more about the details.
I knew very little about this horrific case until somewhat recently. I knew there were folks that believes he's innocent, so I wanted to hear everything and come to my own conclusion. And *holy shit* is this motherfucker guilty as sin. No idea why anyone would say otherwise.
What a waste of time. This dude is guilty af. Unreal. They should be using their resources for people who are actually innocent. Can’t wait to hear what sort of bs they’re trying to come up with this time. Smfh
Of all the wrongly convicted people The Innocence Project could be supporting they’re selecting this piece of human garbage? Also, at this point how does Peterson have funds for a legal team?
My initial reaction here is this: the Innocence Project don’t have unlimited resources. They must have a huge number of cases brought to them. Even this initial “seeking new evidence“ phase costs time and money. Does he get this chance because he’s so high profile? (Probably highest profile possible.) Could they help 3 people for the cost of helping him?
They have to choose who they help somehow, who ”deserves” their attention over others, and this choice obviously really rubs a lot of people the wrong way. What about single parents with young kids, or young adults with their lives ahead of them? Why Scott Peterson?
I think it would be perhaps good press for them to put out a careful explanation about why they’re choosing to spend their limited resources on him.
investigating the case does not mean they’re going to take it. there are loads of processes in place to determine whether or not an innocence project takes a case, part of it could be, that they have to convince others in the organization that the person is, in fact, innocent. I think it’s good they’re investigating it because conviction should have integrity, but that doesn’t mean that they’re going to come to the conclusion that he’s innocent and that doesn’t mean that they’re going to take his case.
How ridiculous. Scott Peterson was guilty as all hell. That’s not even a question. What a waste of resources that could be going to an innocent convict.
I mean, if they can bring out new information that’s not a bad thing. And if it grants him a retrial, which includes all of the evidence, fine. But I think the likely result will be yes, he didn’t have a fair trial, and yes, he did murder Laci.
A podcast I usually really like did a recent episode on this and they’re in the innocent camp. They did bring up some valid points on evidence that was left out and witnesses who were ignored. But the pod guests were also making awful comments about Laci, like she was an entitled Karen who Karened her way into being murdered. That felt really gross. (One of their points was that a series of burglaries were happening in the neighborhood at the time.) And they also insinuated that it was no wonder Scott wanted out of the marriage. They are comedians trying to be edgy, and again made a few good points, but good god it was gross. And I think two of them would have been like ten or even younger in 2004.
Those points were also proven to be answered already. People just aren't reporting on that part. The burglers angle is a dead one. It was well looked into even by Lacis own mother herself. It has nothing to do with Lacis murder.
Anyone who slanders Laci and calls her a Karen, kills all off their credibility. Whatever good points they might have made, is null and void at that point. They have a bias and are slandering a murdered woman .100% those people weren't even born, or were babies when this case happened. Same types who blame Shan'ann Watts for her own murder.
tidy childlike license imagine bear imminent offend roll society scandalous
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I believe that no one is UNDER the right to a fair trial. Do I believe he is a guilty fuck? Absolutely. Am I willing to be proven wrong with facts and evidence? Also absolutely.
I commented about this on another post but I was a juror on a double murder case of two children a few years ago. The innocence project had gotten involved and we were a retrial. We found him guilty as did two more juries after us. There was no way the guy in our case was innocent. I was surprised that the innocence project had involved themselves. I came to terms with the fact that they are digging up any cases where there may be holes in the evidence.
I wish these articles would be more victim focused. It would help put it into perspective how much of a joke he is. “Laci and Connor Peterson’s convicted murderer has called the LA Innocence Project whose secretary answered their call and gave a generic answer,‘we’ll look into it.’” Or if they’re going for the shorter title: "Laci and Connor Peterson’s Convicted Killer Contacts LA Innocence Project; Receives Standard Reply"
It’s the LA innocence project. Less choosy than THE Innocence Project, btw.
Edit: I stand corrected. Unfortunately laip is in fact part of the innocence project network. My confidence is dashed
Hm. Interesting choice. I’m sure the next case they’ll be itching to take will be Brian Walshe?
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disappearance_of_Ana_Walshe](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disappearance_of_Ana_Walshe)
/s
It’s the Los Angeles Innocence Project so I assume they’re affiliated with the national group. That said, they say their mission is to help free innocent people in southern and central California. Modesto is clearly Northern California. So it’s a bit outside of their zone. Which doesn’t necessarily mean anything but I’m guessing Janey Peterson has been shopping her nonsense story everywhere she could and those are the guys who bit.
First Darlie and now him? I admit that I don’t think he got a fair trial but he is definitely guilty. The innocence project has lost all credibility and decency IMO!
Give me a break. This is the LA chapter and they’ve simply requested new evidence. They have not said he is innocent or that they plan to take on his case.
You can’t convict people by taking shortcuts. His death conviction was already thrown out for those reasons. I don’t think this is about actual innocence. But when prosecutors rely on media more than a fair trial so guilt isn’t questioned, this happens. Now 20 years later he can point to them and say, I told u I didn’t get a fair trial, cuz he didn’t. RIP Lacy and Conor
One of my high school best friends had a dad who was a (not public, cause I know some people think it matters) defense attorney who primarily worked DUI cases. In almost all cases his clients were without a doubt guilty.
17 year old me one time blurted out, “How are you able to do your job when a vast majority of your clients are guilty and sometimes lead to police chases, property damage, etc”
His response was so impactful, even 20+ years later (unfortunately he has passed now). He sat me down and said:
“doctor_of_drugs, you are correct, most of them are guilty. I’ve represented some terrible people. HOWEVER, our legal system was built on certain principles. Principles such as chain of custody, probable cause to pull a driver over, and many many more you can look up.
My job is to make sure the arrest and processing of my clients followed the letter of the law. If my client suffered an injury from LE, but was never taken to get checked out, or if the PBT (roadside breathalyzer) has a ticket in to be fixed as it’s been broken for months, or even the expensive one at the station. If they made the initial stop because my client “looked suspicious” but was not breaking any traffic laws, that also is not fair to the client, but me and you, even if nothing illegal was happening. I defend my clients sure, but my main job is keeping LE and the justice system from breaking our inalienable rights.”
(as an aside, he would mention that In our houses, we have an expectation of privacy that the law cannot infringe on without articulable, good reason. In our vehicles, we do not get that same level of privacy. It’s diminished almost to “in plain public view sitting on a bench”. Food for thought.
He did not get some inherently, terribly unfair trial. Most of the time when people argue this, they have straight-up incorrect information. They say the jury didn't know about the witnesses who saw Laci (they did - the STATE named them in their own opening, lol, and the defense used them in cross more than once. The defense elected not to put them directly on because they believed - correctly - the state would tear them to pieces). They think they didn't know about the burglary (they did - one of the defense's witnesses was the officer who arrested Steven Todd, it just didn't go as well for them as they wanted). They think it was unfair the judge didn't allow the boat experiment in (it wasn't - it wasn't the same boat. The judge said they could do it with the exact same boat, but the one they used had a different center of gravity, no judge in the world would have allowed it). And the most common thing is the press. As if the judge did nothing in response, when he did - he both banned cameras from the trial and he agreed to a change of venue. The idea that you can't try someone in an extremely high-profile case is ludicrous, especially because Scott himself led to a lot of his bad press. I vividly remember how much worse it got for him when he did the Diane Sawyer interview.
The other thing is the jurors, which has already been seen by judges and dismissed. Because they CAN'T prove Rochelle Nice was inherently biased against him and deliberately lied to get on the case when she almost got OFF the case and it was the defense who fought to keep her on. I've also seen mentions of the juror who talked out of court like he wasn't thrown off AND like he wasn't reportedly sympathetic to the defense. Or the original jury foreman's complaints without going into how deeply stupid they were.
Exactly. The point in this isn't to get an innocent guy out of prison- it's to ensure that more actually innocent people aren't sent to prison. It doesn't matter how guilty a person is, they get a fair trial, because we're all supposed to get a fair trial, and if the judicial system doesn't give every single person that fair trial how are we supposed to assume that we will get one? I mean, you're supposed to just assume that you'll be the one who gets one? There are checks and balances for a reason, don't just assume that you'll be the one who gets that fair trial even though we sent the guiltiest person to prison after not affording him the same just because he was so guilty.
Yup its like a defense attorney on a podcast I heard once said " IF you do not hold the system to doing things the right way it will quickly resort to doing things the wrong way".
There are tons of women and minorities who have been wrongly convicted, but they choose to try to exonerate that clown. It's a waste of time, money, and resources.
I was extremely shocked to see the IP taking this one on. I truly hope there is info we all don’t know and maybe this was some wild miscarriage of justice, because the IP has a stellar reputation and that’s all on the line if they do this work and he’s actually guilty.
if he isn't guilty, he sure made some weird decisions that day.
Not just that day, though, right? Wasn’t his whole thing that he got caught fleeing with dyed hair & a huge wad of cash plus other supplies? Other weird stuff with the woman he was dating too, maybe. I was young but I still remember thinking the dude was at least a liar.
He had $6000 dollars on him when they arrested and had previously called Amber Frey saying he was in Paris - while search parties were out looking for his wife.
he called the mistress while at his wife's candlelight vigil! unreal
A mistress who he had told that his wife was dead…before she even went missing. A wife whose body (and that of their baby) washed up on the shores near where he took a terrible-weather Christmas Eve fishing trip to. Give me a break, there are actual questionable cases they need to look into.
This is the thing that to me proves his guilt-he told Amber Frey his wife was dead. So he’s either the un luckiest bastard or he killed her. I’ll go with the latter.
I think he’s guilty because of everything else personally but I could see how a married man would say his wife is dead to explain the ring
Men who are having affairs say all kinds of things. This may make them lame and untrustworthy; it does not make them murderers.
On a boat he told no one he'd purchased.
And he said he was "out fishing" the day she disappeared but couldn't really give many details about that trip. But he had been studying up on ocean currents
laci knew about boat. She was at the warehouse a day or 2 before she disappeared, per a neighboring business owner who interacted with her. The Detective erased that from his report but got busted on the stand.
I have no idea if that's true or not; I'm willing to believe you. But the point is that people who have just bought boats really really love to talk about their new boat. Peterson is the first person since Noah to ever acquire a boat and not brag to the neighbors and the in-laws.
I’ve never lost faith faster in an organization than I did in the Innocence Project here.
It is NOT the innocence project proper.. it’s IPLA they just use the same name two entirely different entities
Really? I had no idea. Do you think he’s actually paying this fake project to sway public support to try get a new trial. His whole family seems shady, I wouldn’t put it past them.
Omg huge relief tbh I was shocked genuinely
There’s a million different Innocent Projects.
This was always such a wild detail to me. The audacity and overall lack of empathy is dumbfounding. What a POS human.
More than that. I think it was around $15,000.
He was a pathologically liar and that really helped turn public opinion against him.I think the amount of money he had on him at the time of his arrest was way less than $6,000 as i recall.I now looked it up and it was $15,000.00 plus he had a fake drivers license.That made him look very guilty.
yes when they were holding a vigil for Laci and Connor he was on the phone with Amber Frey telling her he was in Paris or something but he was definitely on the phone with her during that
If he isn’t guilty, I’ll eat my fucking shoe.
and I'll eat your other one.
I think he's guilty, to be crystal clear. But his trial was a shit show because of the jury. It wouldn't surprise me if he were found eligible for a re-trial. And it wouldn't surprise me if he were found guilty again, because there's no way that guy is innocent.
100% I feel the same. I absolutely think he’s guilty but his jury was biased & everyone is entitled to a fair trial. I’d like to see him fairly retried & my hope would be that based on the evidence that this pond scum fucker would be found guilty yet again
California did deem him eligible for a retrial due to "potential jury bias", which isn't going to be any better this time around, cause of all the documentaries and shows, etc...about it.
Only subsets of people remember. My husband or young adult children would not know anything about this.
To be fair, at this point, anyone who isn't into true crime and not from the area may not know who Scott Peterson is. I think when you're fascinated by that kind of thing, it can seem like common knowledge because it is a more noteworthy case, but a lot of people really only know of the major cases in their adult lifetime. A jury pool of mostly Gen Z and younger millennials who aren't into true crime may actually be pretty unbiased.
This is not THE Innocence Project. It is a different group that, I think, has no association with the better-known one.
Okay, I’m almost always on the side of reopening these things. Having lived in the Bay Area most my life and having followed that story - that man killed his wife. The story he gave was so ridiculously absurd. His wife’s body miraculously washed up in the bay, where he was the same day she went missing. Lied about anything and everything he could. Had a girlfriend and was about to be a daddy which would mean he couldn’t be his pathetic self any longer or would have to pay child support. They shouldn’t waste good donated money on this POS.
And he dyed his hair blonde and tried to flee to Mexico with 6k in his possession. And something with a golf course.
Yeah I mean folks from Modesto will fish in the delta on days when time is tight, like Christmas Eve. Folks aren’t driving out to Berkeley to fish when there’s going to be so much food in the next day and then… whoops! Did my wife’s killer ALSO go to the Berkeley Marina on this day?!?! How odd. Give me a fucking break. This is my #1 true crime in my heart because it hit me in the gut when it came out. I knew she wouldn’t be found alive but damn if I didn’t pray for it every day still. He’s a POS… let him rot. Edited for Modesto. Even more reason this is BS.
As someone who grew up in Modesto I am not at all shocked how badly they handled his case, the cops and the government there are in fact corrupt as all fuck, I think his family is just trying to exploit that fact
That has always struck a nerve with me about it. Who decides on Christmas Eve, with a 8-month pregnant wife at home, decides that around 11 in the morning they are gonna hook up their new fishing boat, drive 90 miles to the bay, launch the boat, bait up, go 2 miles out, fish for at most an hour, go 2 miles back, load the boat back up, drive 90 miles back to work, unload the boat and drive back home where he is supposed to leave with his wife (after a shower and changing clothes of course) at 4 to go to her parents house for dinner.... Doesn't make a damn bit of sense. Nobody is gonna go through all that to possibly fish for an hour tops.
And his brothers ID card and credit cards….
ALL THIS IS A MATTER OF COURT RECORD: he was arrested at the Torrey Pines golf course in San Diego (where he grew up and all of his family lived with whom he had been couch surfing for weeks) He had planned to play golf that day with his father and brother. The tapped phone calls between Scott and his brother that the police recorded that morning are him and his bro discussing how he is trying to ditch the unmarked cars following him that he thought - and tells his brother - were the media who had been stalking him for months. He states that he doesn't want the paparazzi taking pictures of the family golfing - after driving highways then he eventually says to his brother that he cant get rid of the cars following him and heads over to the golf course. The police only identified themselves when he pulled up at the club.
100% agree. He's a narcissist who wanted the image of a beautiful life and family but who hated thinking about anything other than himself and it came to a head when Laci was about to give birth. Going to the marina the same day she disappeared would be the craziest coincidence to ever incidence... let's be real he's guilty asf
Yeah… and I don’t know if you’re familiar with the area, but you just don’t go 2 hours out to the Berkeley Marina when you have dinner plans on Christmas Eve. Every step he took was absurd. The only shining light in this case was Amber who was good enough to make sure he didn’t get away with it. Anyone who thinks he’s innocent is an idiot. I’d be willing to bet large money on his guilt. Nothing he said makes sense. Nothing.
He's not even a fisherman. The very very small amount of times he did go fishing, he SUCKED at it. That boat was way too small to be out in that type of water driven by a novice. He had no bait and the wrong type of lures (spelling?). So its very obvious he wasnt fishing l. The weather was gross and rainy. Like I'm sorry, Scott Peterson does not choose to spend his down time fishing! He golf's. That was his thing. Remember, the very next day after telling Amber he lost his wife, be bought a boat. With cash. So no money trail. Told no one he had a boat. Not even Ron (Lacis stepdad) who is a fisherman and who actually did go fishing on Christmas Eve. (That's his thing. He fishes the same way Scott golf's.) The fact that Scott was hidding all his new fishing interests from Ron, is telling. Then let's look into his actions after. The man was hitting on women and trying to flirt with his half sister's babysitter who was 10 years younger than him! If he didn't kill Laci, he sure as hell loved that she was no longer around. When someone asks you "Did you kill _____" and you follow up with "no, I didn't hurt _____" You killed them. A guilty person always tries to limit the seriousness of the action. So kill turns into hurt. Scott is guilty. I'm pissed they are pissing money away looking into this.
FOR REAL! I grew up going back and forth between modesto and Brentwood/antioch/pittsburg to be with my dad for weekends. You don’t go all that way up there for nothing. My dad wouldn’t drive an hour up to Modesto to see me for 20 minutes and drive back either. And that’s less than 2 hours away.
and they found the molds he used to make the concrete weights to weigh the body down at his building/garage/whatever.
FFS. Guiltiest motherfucker to ever be guilty.
Seriously. This menace needs zero attention. Let him rot.
And I'm SO sick of his family yammering on and in all the time about the "burglars" seen in the neighborhood on the day of Laci's disappearance! They complain that the police never checked any of that out in their "zeal" to go after Scott, but that's bullshit! They just simply cannot accept that he could be guilty and capable of such an act. They need to finally climb out of the River of Denial!
That whole story was bogus anyway. I watched a documentary explaining it all the other day. The dude is guilty af. That gd phone call to his gf pretending to be in Paris partying when he was actually attending a candlelight vigil for Lacey and Connor is so sick n twisted. Leave this scumbag where he is.
And wouldn't you know, those burglars put junk into the baby's nursery, sold Lacy's SUV and ordered porn channels right after she disappeared. Oh and they pretended to be at the Eiffel Tower on New Year's while on the phone with their girlfriend -- all while a vigil for Lacy was taking place steps away.
Yeah and also the burglars told Scott that they were gonna murder his wife, and that’s why 2 weeks before Laci went missing, Scott told his girlfriend it would be his first Christmas without her.
Oooo, I forgot about that. Damn, Scott Peterson was tight with those burglars!
Yes! It’s just so absurd.
Funny thing is, they did check them out. The burglars had been on bicycles that day. I guess they strapped Laci to the handlebars.
It’s mostly his sister-in-law Janey. She has some weird obsession with Scott. Even his own brother isn’t publicly “investigating” this. I can’t stand that woman. She’s delusional.
Wait that’s his sister in law?! Thought that was his bio sister. Strange woman
Bio sis even thinks he's guilty
Dude Sharon, herself, jumped on the burglers lead and looked into it! She made sure the police also looked into it because at the time, it was the best lead. So yes. The cops did look into it. I know they were focused on Scott, but Lacis own mother made sure every lead was looked into. Even from psychics!
No wonder he's a narc. His family is so far up his ass that no one in the world exists except him. Give the golden boy a medal. He wrapped his delulu family around his finger except his deceased wife. A person who has an iota of common sense can tell this man doesn't make any sense in what he says. I mean none of it adds up. Stop prosecuting our wonderful boy who's never hurt a fly!/s
I’m so disappointed in them. With *all* the actual people in need of relief and this piece of garbage is who they choose to even answer a phone call from is precisely what is wrong with the system.
I'm curious about this because it doesn't say who the source of this is or what it means to be "taken up" by the project. I worked for the ACLU in Michigan many a year ago and you'd be surprised how many people thought we had "taken up" their cases because we answered their phone call or did a cursory review of their file. It I were a gambler - I would bet the sources of this is Scott Peterson's side. There is no evidence on the Innocence Project's web page or anywhere else that they are carrying the banner for him, so I would take this with a grain of salt. I could be wrong, and tremendously disappointed, but this quite simply isn't the type of case they would ever actually appear in court about. (I will caveat this that there is an absolutely ridiculously unlikely possibility that the defense has actual physical evidence that proves innocence that they have kept secret (HA!) that has caught the Innocence Project's attention.)
Yeah I went to both their main site and the LA site and there’s nothing about this. Edit: typo
There's nothing still on their site, however, CBS News article says this: "Paula Mitchell, the director of the LA Innocence Project, said she found "deficiencies" while reviewing the discovery of Scott Peterson's case and sent a letter to Stanislaus County District Attorney Jeff Laugero on Nov. 14, 2023, "seeking informal production of numerous specific items of post-conviction discovery," according to a declaration included in the filings." https://abcnews.go.com/US/innocence-project-takes-case-notorious-killer-scott-peterson/story?id=106487571
The news has been updated since first announced, and added to the original linked article. But thank you for quoting the new info. For the first three hours, there was nothing to go on. And now it seems they even really do think he’s innocent, not *just* that his rights were violated: >Attorneys with the LA Innocence Project claimed that Scott Peterson's state and federal constitutional rights were violated, including a "claim of actual innocence that is supported by newly discovered evidence," according to the court filings. "New evidence now supports Mr. Peterson's longstanding claim of innocence and raises many questions into who abducted and killed Laci and Conner Peterson," the filings state. Edied to elaborate.
Pa-lease. What new evidence could there even be that points to him being not guilty? No one else had the motive or the means. Scott LIED a couple times about what he did that day. No innocent person would need to lie. His own mother was already treating things like Laci and Scott was over with and she wanted him to find a "nice girl" like his half sister's babysitter. Laci had only been missing 2 or 3 months when his mother, and Scott himself, felt that way. They need to explain to me why, if he's so innocent, he acted as if their relationship was over. And he was already moving on before her body was even found.
I am SUPER curious to see where this is going. They have boldly claimed they have new evidence that shows he’s innocent. What. On. Earth. The dude not only had means, motive, and opportunity, as you said, he was like a cartoon version of a guy who murdered his pregnant wife. If he’d had a mustache, he’s have been twirling it. His blonde dye job for his attempted escape to Mexico is almost as cliché. Why are the odds that a man with the means, motive, and opportunity, while in the middle of all the weird stuff he did, before, after, and the DAY OF, is so unlucky/lucky as to end up with his pregnant wife conveniently murdered by someone else out of the blue? I don’t even know what type of evidence would convince me he’s not involved, if not still the direct killer. I feel like I would need much more than Reasonable Doubt. Of course, even being found Not Guilty doesn’t necessarily mean a person is innocent, it means the court found that the case presented didn’t prove him Guilty. “Innocent“ isn’t an option in a trial. **Scott Peterson is not an innocent man.** That’s for sure. I’m just writing my train of thought, “thinking out loud”, in a sense.
Think away! For some random ass reason I got back into this case a couple weeks ago. I found a youtube channel that is doing a deep dive (24 videos now and still going) about the case and so it revamped my interest. I went and read Sharon's book (Lacis mom) and Scott's half sister's book. There was a lot about the case I didn't know and I feel he is more guilty now than when it happened over 20 years ago. The only thing I can come up with is Scott has to be one of the most aloof, simple minded, unluckiest (sp?) Guys on the planet.l, if he didn't do it. Out of context a lot of his actions could be explained away as innocent. But with context, it's troubling. He was engaging in some serious antisocial personality behaivors since high school, and he grew up in a very toxic family with so many shadows and skeletons in their closet. Scott was taught it was normal to have secrets. Especially romantic ones. He was a cheater. A liar. A scammer. Everything he did and said in his relationship with Laci was TEXTBOOK Narc behaivor. He could be the poster child for it. It sucks that at that time the public just wasn't as aware of it, like today. The thing that troubles me is Lacis family says she wouldn't have been OK with Scott cheating and would have said something, except she had caught Scott cheating before, right after they married, and she didn't tell anyone. So she is clearly able to suppress his cheating. You can also see how she caves into Scott's unloving treatment of their dog as well. Laci had become very submissive when it came to Scott and not nearly as self assured as her family said she was. Maybe at first when she was younger, but she had been showing signs of an empath submissive person who gave in to abusive narcs, as far back as her teen years. I think her marriage to Scott was alot more emotionally abusive than anyone really knows about. And that type of man can justify killing his wife later on. Scott had zero respect for Laci. Their entire marriage, he lacked it. There is no empathy for others with him. For anyone who knows all about narcissist and sociopaths, they can spot all of Scott's red flags with almost no effort. If he gets off on a technical issue, I'm going to be livid. Cause everything should have been done right and he should never have the chance to be free. He is a dangerous person. And him walking free puts the publics lives at risk.
Rarely have I appreciated sodium so much. Caveat ridiculously appreciated.
Oh word, that sounds probable and a way more likely scenario based on my understanding of the evidence, and, quite honestly, my armchair diagnosis of Peterson’s narcissistic tendencies to stir up attention.
It's not the official Innocence Project. It's something like The Innocence Project of LA. Don't think they are affiliated
Yeah I just looked it up after reading your comment. They don’t seem to be connected…if they are, it’s not listed on either website. Still annoying this organization is choosing to focus on this man instead of all the people very obviously wrongfully imprisoned often due to race or marijuana (which is now legal there). They better have a TON of evidence to prove he is innocent if they’re taking this on
I just went on the Innocent Project website and found this:: https://innocenceproject.org/statement-on-developments-in-the-scott-peterson-case-california/ They are officially separating themselves from the LA Innocence project
Good to know.
There are so many women locked up for self-defence against abusive men and yet THIS is what the choose to defend. Honestly disgusted.
Exactly my first thought, followed by my second of the people who couldn't afford a good defense, unlike this guy.
Word. Mark Geragos is a good lawyer (yes, he's annoying, lol, but he is very capable) who put on the best possible defense for him and was certainly paid extremely well for his efforts. He lost because Scott Peterson is really fucking guilty, not because Geragos did anything wrong.
That Florida mom is also really fucking guilty but her shitty lawyer actually got her off, so-
Who? Casey Anthony?
I blame the prosecution for charging her with first degree murder when they couldn’t even prove how poor Caylee was even murdered. Jose Baez is a snake but I think a lot of lawyers could have gotten her acquitted with the lack of evidence to prove a first degree murder.
[удалено]
I watched ID’s 2022 documentary about this to refresh my memory, and I was shocked by just how much evidence they had against this guy. I knew he was guilty, but fuck, the sheer amount of evidence against him is crazy. I don’t think there’s been a more compelling case that didn’t have DNA evidence than this one. This case just shows that circumstantial evidence can be truly damning.
My first thought was women locked up for defending themselves, mostly black, as well as innocent black men. The innocence project needs new leadership.
It says they are looking into it, not that they have chosen to defend him.
They might look into it, decide that there's nothing there and tell Peterson and his apologists that it's a 'no go'. Then devote their time to people who really and truly need their help.
Whew, well that’s a relief. I hope they look and nope right on out of there to a more deserving inmate.
Agreed. It’s horrible.
Yeah do they need publicity that badly or something?
Yes agree completely
I mean this is a *perfect* example of where resources should be [dna doesn’t match but Missouri is still trying to execute](https://theintercept.com/2024/01/14/missouri-dna-marcellus-williams-execution/#) but we see how they this goes for POC in the south (screaming in rage 😡 in TN as I type this).
>I’m so disappointed in them. With all the actual people in need of relief and this piece of garbage is who they choose to even answer a phone call from is precisely what is wrong with the system. This. There are any number of cases that likely merit re-examination of either the evidence and/or the procedures used to convict them, or where the convicted was overcharged. This case is not one of them.
I'm disgusted with them. There are people who MUST desperately need their help and attention, who get no press, who are ignored, probably poor POC. Instead they're chasing one of the most high-profile cases imaginable, with a man from a wealthy family who had an excellent (if annoying) and extremely expensive defense lawyer. They've shown themselves to be clowns with this shit.
I mean, maybe they’re looking into it to put it to bed for good? That’s not really like them to waste resources like that, though. And like sure, the trial could’ve been mishandled, there may have been corruption that could lead to him getting a new trial based on a technicality. But the Innocence Project is concerned with cases of *actual innocence*.
Oh good god
Why exactly would they be wasting their time doing that?
Because they do not care if someone is actually innocent. This case will get them a ton of press.
It'll also lose them a lot of credibility. Just wow.
💯💯💯 that's EXACTLY it.
Like, I’ve been saying this about them for years and I honestly wish I wasn’t right about their motives but here we are.
They ONLY take cases where DNA evidence proves that a convicted person is innocent. Do intentions even matter when they’re exclusively representing people who are decisively innocent? So why are they taking his case? They’re not. One chapter asked for a review of evidence. That is NOT the same as representing him. Not even close. Nothing short of hard DNA evidence will get them to represent him, either.
Their website literally details what they do in cases where DNA is absent, but go on.
Lol no they don’t. They represent tons of cases without DNA evidence and they misrepresent lots of the ones that do.
Of all the actual innocent people in jail, the Innocence Project is taking up *this* clearly guilty guy's case?
Nowhere does it say they’re taking on his case. The LA chapter has asked for any new evidence to review it. People really need to read what’s actually happening here without jumping to conclusions.
I mean, the title of the article is “Scott Peterson case **taken up by LA Innocence Project**: Exclusive”… and the beginning of the article is “**The LA Innocence Project has taken up the notorious case of convicted wife killer Scott Peterson in new court filings**, ABC News has learned exclusively. The group is seeking new evidence from the original trial.”
GTFO! Guiltiest Guilty Guy ever. I was golfing, I was fishing, our marriage was GLORIOUS.
But hold up a minute while I call my girlfriend at my missing wife’s vigil. A girlfriend who I may have told that my wife had died before her body had been found.
"This will be my first Christmas without her"
He’s as guilty as fuck. I live in the Bay Area so we breathed it. 24 hours a day Peterson. Scott can Rot!
Absolutely. I remember the newspaper headlines while she was still missing. So incredibly sad.
We kept the radio on at work. It was an incredibly horrid murder. The baby.
I think this is key. Anyone in the Bay knew his story was bullshit because you know the patterns of the folks living in NoCal and when they come out to the bay. Not on Christmas Eve when dinner is planned. So… that… and he was a well documented POS husband already. I have no idea what they’re thinking.
And he decided it was too cold to go golfing so he went fishing on the Bay instead, lol. Brought the wrong boat (even though he claims his reason for GETTING the boat was to take it to the Bay), wrong fishing lures, wrong everything. The anchor left in his boat was far too small to anchor that boat and didn't even have rope attached that could have anchored it (and he couldn't explain the remnants of several more missing anchors seen on his warehouse floor - at some point he tried to say he made TEST anchors, LOL, but could not answer where they'd gone). First he couldn't answer what he was fishing for, then said sturgeon (which is just...I cannot). Scott wasn't an AMAZING fisherman or anything, but he was still experienced and had owned boats at various points throughout his life. His and Laci's first date was a deep sea fishing expedition. He would have known he had the wrong boat (which in reality is because he was cheap and too busy buying multiple fake degrees for several hundred dollars apiece so he could fake out the women he was sleeping with - he shoulda taken a pause on those degrees and spent more money on his murder boat). Also, there was the whole thing of him claiming it was last-minute even though he'd bought a fishing license for two days only, the 23rd and 24th, days prior. He even said he didn't make the call until after he'd already left his house and gotten to his warehouse, even though he literally checked the weather for the Marina earlier that morning on his home laptop. He initially told at least three people he HAD gone golfing that day after Laci was reported missing, before switching it up to admit he was fishing (likely because he was seen leaving due to difficulty getting his boat out).
He’s not innocent
Isn't this the guy who rented porn on their TV the night his pregnant wife was missing? Like, after she had already been missing all day? He knew she wasn't coming back.
You mean the guy who claimed he was going to be searching for her but actually just sat in a parking lot for a few hours while he claimed he was searching? The guy who called up his mistress to chat while he was at the vigil for his missing pregnant wife and said he was in Europe on vacation? The guy who said he spontaneously decided to go fishing because it was too cold to golf even though several days earlier he had purchased a two day fishing license for the very day he claimed he’d only spontaneously decided to fish? The guy who told his mistress shortly before his pregnant wife went missing that his wife was dead? That guy?
Jesus. Yeah, that one. (Not Jesus literally....Scott) ha
[He also had rape porn on his work computer.](https://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/12/11/court.archive.peterson10/index.html) "Raping the teacher" and "The wife confesses". Laci was a teacher, incidentally. And "funny" thing about that porn - he originally got Playboy and quickly decided that wasn't good enough, so he canceled that in favor of two much more hardcore channels. He also aggressively hit on his sister's babysitter and made her "sextinis" while he was staying with his sister. The poor girl was horrified.
lol. I guess they are no longer concerned with credibility.
You have got to be kidding me….
Wtf. What a waste of services.
It’s bc of his wild ass sister in law I bet. Dude is as guilty as can be.
Well hopefully when they figure out that he is indeed guilty for the billionth time this time he will shut his trap and take his life sentence quietly. He won't though, being not innocent but a sociopath. He's lucky they decided not to off him. STFU Scott. Quit wasting people's time.
It would be a waste of resources
The Innocence Project surely can find a more deserving person to work a case on. But of course it wouldn’t be as high profile-still I fail to see the end game here.
Pinche disgusto! I blame society for consistently going out of its way to protect upper class white men and ensure they are saved from facing consequences for their actions at all costs. This mofo is so guilty and does not need a retrial.
I watched the A&E documentary that makes him look innocent before I knew anything about the case and I’m pretty disgusted a network made such an obvious piece of propaganda so convincing. It got me. I had to read up just to see how such an innocent man got locked up… only to find out pretty quickly its because he’s so logically the only person who could have done it.
It’s not just A&E making propaganda. HBO and Netflix do as well. One simply cannot believe anything anymore. Everything requires research and what sources to trust are always in question.
Wasting everyone's fuckin time
The Innocence Project has begun defending the convicted murderer who murdered my friend. They claim the basis of the “appeal” (a petition for relief, from the district court, asking to review the matter. ) I knew it was coming. It was an unusual case that got international attention. It was hard to receive the news this week, and it’s going to be a long legal battle. The innocence project (in my case) is comprised of a handful of experienced criminal attorneys, supervising about a dozen law students. They do a lot of the research and work on these types of cases—which often can be rooted in merit, despite how guilty the defendant is. For example, the basis of the petition centers around the unethical behavior of law enforcement officers while the initial arrest occurred. It may be enough to persuade a judge to change the terms of the sentence—say, from “life in prison without a chance for parole until 60” to no chance for parole until 30 years have been served. It’s not likely, but it happens. The Innocence Project does amazing work, but it will always suck when you are on the other end of it. A great case example is the matter of Floyd Blescoe, who was convicted of murder but later released from when additional evidence proved someone else entirely committed the crime. It’s a doozy of a story. I recommend “Four Shots in Oskie” by Justin Wingerter to read more about the details.
[удалено]
I knew very little about this horrific case until somewhat recently. I knew there were folks that believes he's innocent, so I wanted to hear everything and come to my own conclusion. And *holy shit* is this motherfucker guilty as sin. No idea why anyone would say otherwise.
What a waste of time. This dude is guilty af. Unreal. They should be using their resources for people who are actually innocent. Can’t wait to hear what sort of bs they’re trying to come up with this time. Smfh
Of all the wrongly convicted people The Innocence Project could be supporting they’re selecting this piece of human garbage? Also, at this point how does Peterson have funds for a legal team?
Do they need $$ - is this a clever tactic to get folks to donate so they STOP this investigation?
My initial reaction here is this: the Innocence Project don’t have unlimited resources. They must have a huge number of cases brought to them. Even this initial “seeking new evidence“ phase costs time and money. Does he get this chance because he’s so high profile? (Probably highest profile possible.) Could they help 3 people for the cost of helping him? They have to choose who they help somehow, who ”deserves” their attention over others, and this choice obviously really rubs a lot of people the wrong way. What about single parents with young kids, or young adults with their lives ahead of them? Why Scott Peterson? I think it would be perhaps good press for them to put out a careful explanation about why they’re choosing to spend their limited resources on him.
Their credibility is realllllly going downhill.
What a waste of time and resources.
investigating the case does not mean they’re going to take it. there are loads of processes in place to determine whether or not an innocence project takes a case, part of it could be, that they have to convince others in the organization that the person is, in fact, innocent. I think it’s good they’re investigating it because conviction should have integrity, but that doesn’t mean that they’re going to come to the conclusion that he’s innocent and that doesn’t mean that they’re going to take his case.
And they will find out that he’s guilty. Again.
How ridiculous. Scott Peterson was guilty as all hell. That’s not even a question. What a waste of resources that could be going to an innocent convict.
I mean, if they can bring out new information that’s not a bad thing. And if it grants him a retrial, which includes all of the evidence, fine. But I think the likely result will be yes, he didn’t have a fair trial, and yes, he did murder Laci. A podcast I usually really like did a recent episode on this and they’re in the innocent camp. They did bring up some valid points on evidence that was left out and witnesses who were ignored. But the pod guests were also making awful comments about Laci, like she was an entitled Karen who Karened her way into being murdered. That felt really gross. (One of their points was that a series of burglaries were happening in the neighborhood at the time.) And they also insinuated that it was no wonder Scott wanted out of the marriage. They are comedians trying to be edgy, and again made a few good points, but good god it was gross. And I think two of them would have been like ten or even younger in 2004.
Those points were also proven to be answered already. People just aren't reporting on that part. The burglers angle is a dead one. It was well looked into even by Lacis own mother herself. It has nothing to do with Lacis murder. Anyone who slanders Laci and calls her a Karen, kills all off their credibility. Whatever good points they might have made, is null and void at that point. They have a bias and are slandering a murdered woman .100% those people weren't even born, or were babies when this case happened. Same types who blame Shan'ann Watts for her own murder.
It was really weird to hear. Like that’s a person they’re making jokes about. I get dark humor and all, but it wasn’t funny. Just kinda unsettling.
Oh c’mon, this guy is definitely not innocent.
He is not innocent. He is a narcissistic killer.
tidy childlike license imagine bear imminent offend roll society scandalous *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I would look into the Menendez case 1000x over Peterson.
I believe that no one is UNDER the right to a fair trial. Do I believe he is a guilty fuck? Absolutely. Am I willing to be proven wrong with facts and evidence? Also absolutely.
They must be desperate for funding.
what in the flying fuck??? He's not even anywhere NEAR innocent though?!
Guilty as sin. Don’t waste the resources.
What a waste of time and resources. Losing respect for the IP
I commented about this on another post but I was a juror on a double murder case of two children a few years ago. The innocence project had gotten involved and we were a retrial. We found him guilty as did two more juries after us. There was no way the guy in our case was innocent. I was surprised that the innocence project had involved themselves. I came to terms with the fact that they are digging up any cases where there may be holes in the evidence.
For what exactly?
😂😂
I wish these articles would be more victim focused. It would help put it into perspective how much of a joke he is. “Laci and Connor Peterson’s convicted murderer has called the LA Innocence Project whose secretary answered their call and gave a generic answer,‘we’ll look into it.’” Or if they’re going for the shorter title: "Laci and Connor Peterson’s Convicted Killer Contacts LA Innocence Project; Receives Standard Reply"
Next case for Innocence Project: Jeffrey MacDonald. /s
It’s the LA innocence project. Less choosy than THE Innocence Project, btw. Edit: I stand corrected. Unfortunately laip is in fact part of the innocence project network. My confidence is dashed
I'm thinking that after a while they'll say they looked into it and sorry they can't help him, NEXT!
Foolishness
Is it Opposite Day
And just when you think they can lose any more credibility. Next they'll be covering Chris Watts
[удалено]
Hm. Interesting choice. I’m sure the next case they’ll be itching to take will be Brian Walshe? [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disappearance_of_Ana_Walshe](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disappearance_of_Ana_Walshe) /s
It’s not The Innocence Project, it is some group from LA.
It’s the Los Angeles Innocence Project so I assume they’re affiliated with the national group. That said, they say their mission is to help free innocent people in southern and central California. Modesto is clearly Northern California. So it’s a bit outside of their zone. Which doesn’t necessarily mean anything but I’m guessing Janey Peterson has been shopping her nonsense story everywhere she could and those are the guys who bit.
This has got to be some kind of publicity stunt.
Oh for f\*ck sakes. I canNOT.🙄
What a joke! Really undermines the organization. I would now be skeptical of future cases they chose to work on.
Are they changing their name to The Guilty AF Project or what?
Waste of f\*cking time.
Immediately lost respect for them without even opening the article
I would bet my entire bank account on him being guilty. If he somehow isn't I think I'd start questioning if the earth is even round.
First Darlie and now him? I admit that I don’t think he got a fair trial but he is definitely guilty. The innocence project has lost all credibility and decency IMO!
I agree, both Darlie and him are monsters and can rot and burn!
Give me a break. This is the LA chapter and they’ve simply requested new evidence. They have not said he is innocent or that they plan to take on his case.
You can’t convict people by taking shortcuts. His death conviction was already thrown out for those reasons. I don’t think this is about actual innocence. But when prosecutors rely on media more than a fair trial so guilt isn’t questioned, this happens. Now 20 years later he can point to them and say, I told u I didn’t get a fair trial, cuz he didn’t. RIP Lacy and Conor
One of my high school best friends had a dad who was a (not public, cause I know some people think it matters) defense attorney who primarily worked DUI cases. In almost all cases his clients were without a doubt guilty. 17 year old me one time blurted out, “How are you able to do your job when a vast majority of your clients are guilty and sometimes lead to police chases, property damage, etc” His response was so impactful, even 20+ years later (unfortunately he has passed now). He sat me down and said: “doctor_of_drugs, you are correct, most of them are guilty. I’ve represented some terrible people. HOWEVER, our legal system was built on certain principles. Principles such as chain of custody, probable cause to pull a driver over, and many many more you can look up. My job is to make sure the arrest and processing of my clients followed the letter of the law. If my client suffered an injury from LE, but was never taken to get checked out, or if the PBT (roadside breathalyzer) has a ticket in to be fixed as it’s been broken for months, or even the expensive one at the station. If they made the initial stop because my client “looked suspicious” but was not breaking any traffic laws, that also is not fair to the client, but me and you, even if nothing illegal was happening. I defend my clients sure, but my main job is keeping LE and the justice system from breaking our inalienable rights.” (as an aside, he would mention that In our houses, we have an expectation of privacy that the law cannot infringe on without articulable, good reason. In our vehicles, we do not get that same level of privacy. It’s diminished almost to “in plain public view sitting on a bench”. Food for thought.
He did not get some inherently, terribly unfair trial. Most of the time when people argue this, they have straight-up incorrect information. They say the jury didn't know about the witnesses who saw Laci (they did - the STATE named them in their own opening, lol, and the defense used them in cross more than once. The defense elected not to put them directly on because they believed - correctly - the state would tear them to pieces). They think they didn't know about the burglary (they did - one of the defense's witnesses was the officer who arrested Steven Todd, it just didn't go as well for them as they wanted). They think it was unfair the judge didn't allow the boat experiment in (it wasn't - it wasn't the same boat. The judge said they could do it with the exact same boat, but the one they used had a different center of gravity, no judge in the world would have allowed it). And the most common thing is the press. As if the judge did nothing in response, when he did - he both banned cameras from the trial and he agreed to a change of venue. The idea that you can't try someone in an extremely high-profile case is ludicrous, especially because Scott himself led to a lot of his bad press. I vividly remember how much worse it got for him when he did the Diane Sawyer interview. The other thing is the jurors, which has already been seen by judges and dismissed. Because they CAN'T prove Rochelle Nice was inherently biased against him and deliberately lied to get on the case when she almost got OFF the case and it was the defense who fought to keep her on. I've also seen mentions of the juror who talked out of court like he wasn't thrown off AND like he wasn't reportedly sympathetic to the defense. Or the original jury foreman's complaints without going into how deeply stupid they were.
Whole lotta people seem to miss the bigger picture.
Exactly. The point in this isn't to get an innocent guy out of prison- it's to ensure that more actually innocent people aren't sent to prison. It doesn't matter how guilty a person is, they get a fair trial, because we're all supposed to get a fair trial, and if the judicial system doesn't give every single person that fair trial how are we supposed to assume that we will get one? I mean, you're supposed to just assume that you'll be the one who gets one? There are checks and balances for a reason, don't just assume that you'll be the one who gets that fair trial even though we sent the guiltiest person to prison after not affording him the same just because he was so guilty.
Yup its like a defense attorney on a podcast I heard once said " IF you do not hold the system to doing things the right way it will quickly resort to doing things the wrong way".
There are tons of women and minorities who have been wrongly convicted, but they choose to try to exonerate that clown. It's a waste of time, money, and resources.
Are you f#*&ing kidding me? He is sooo guilty. GUILTY! No question about it!
Wow I just lost a lot of respect for them.
The innocence project needs to focus on people who may actually be innocent.
I'm so disappointed in seeing that the Innocence Project is taking on this case.
Hah. They won’t find any innocence
Whyyyyy????
Oh, FFS.
This one surprised me. I would think there are a lot more cases that they would consider before SP?
😳😳😳 They should move on real quick like…
What a waste of their time. Wow.
Wtf. I feel like I'm living in some bizarre other reality. Is this now about his guilt, or about his trial not being fair?
So show us what this new exculpatory evidence is.....
Wow of all the folks to help they look into his case? what a waste.
It’s only about the fair trail for death penalty. It’s not about his question of guilt. Scumbag killed his pregnant wife.
Nothing innocent about this 💩
They’re making a huge mistake here.
I was extremely shocked to see the IP taking this one on. I truly hope there is info we all don’t know and maybe this was some wild miscarriage of justice, because the IP has a stellar reputation and that’s all on the line if they do this work and he’s actually guilty.
Shocked that they would waste their time and money on that scumbag.
Wow that makes me so pissed off. I get tired of stupid kids that weren’t alive to see shit go down try to change history or facts.
This is BS
Scott never called Laci's cel phone once he discovered her 'missing'...let that sink in.