Laci/Scott Peterson?

chic

SF VIP
Location
U.S.
This was the first successful prosecution and murder one conviction of a suspect based on purely circumstantial evidence. I think Scott's reprehensible behavior and unlikeable personality are what got him convicted. What do you say?
 

Jeni

Member
This was the first successful prosecution and murder one conviction of a suspect based on purely circumstantial evidence. I think Scott's reprehensible behavior and unlikeable personality are what got him convicted. What do you say?
perhaps his personality and odd behavior helped to convict...... i believe he did it.

This case and the many cases that have followed......... makes me wonder what in society makes some of these disturbed individuals decide on murder?
Most of these cases the killer spouse could walk away .....all seem to be unhappy/ cheating not wanting the family

Just divorce and move on........... yes there are financial complications........... but really the idea to get rid of a spouse and sometimes children to seems very evil and we have seen more of this ......

Same plans used ... spouse is " missing" and they seem to relish the attention of organized searches and media coverage.......
 

chic

SF VIP
Location
U.S.
Well, Scott is going to get a new penalty phase hearing and trial. I would be interested to hear from people who claimed to see Laci walking Mackenzie, their dog, after Scott had left to go fishing. Also of interest would be the two burglars, Stephen Todd and Chris Pierce who were burglarizing the house across the street from the Peterson's on the morning Laci went missing. Todd confessed to a family member in a phone call that he and his partner were "confronted" by Laci that morning.

There are a lot of questions to be answered here. I'm curious to see how it all plays out.
 

Nathan

Member
This was the first successful prosecution and murder one conviction of a suspect based on purely circumstantial evidence. I think Scott's reprehensible behavior and unlikeable personality are what got him convicted. What do you say?
The first? Well, I tell you I was hanging on the latest news to see this monster convicted.
Every so often I check with California's Department of Corrections & Rehabilitations(my former employer) to see his status.
Inmate locator
Ah, still at San Quentin I see..."condemned", has a nice ring to it. "The inmate shown above is serving a death sentence and is, therefore, not eligible for parole consideration." Just where he should be.
 

Murrmurr

Senior Member
He was truly unlikable but he was also very unconvincing. In every interview I watched he looked and sounded to me like he was lying. And, of course, he lied to his girlfriend about his marital status, lied to his wife about where he was when he was with his girlfriend, and lied to his employer to get time off to be with his girlfriend. In my opinion, Scott Peterson lied to himself when he decided that murdering his wife was justifiable, and that he could totally get away it.
 

ohioboy

Member
Location
Ohio
This was the first successful prosecution and murder one conviction of a suspect based on purely circumstantial evidence. I think Scott's reprehensible behavior and unlikeable personality are what got him convicted. What do you say?

MOST murders, among other crimes, rest mainly on circumstantial evidence.
 

chic

SF VIP
Location
U.S.
MOST murders, among other crimes, rest mainly on circumstantial evidence.
Not true these days with DNA testing. In the Chandra Levy case, which we discussed here, police focused solely on congressman Gary Condit because he was having an illicit affair with Chandra and another woman as well. He was powerful, uncooperative and unlikable. But he was also innocent.

I think it would be beyond terrible to convict an innocent man of first degree murder based on purely circumstantial evidence. I didn't like Scott's personality either. But murder 1 is the most serious of charges.
 

ohioboy

Member
Location
Ohio
Not true these days with DNA testing. In the Chandra Levy case, which we discussed here, police focused solely on congressman Gary Condit because he was having an illicit affair with Chandra and another woman as well. He was powerful, uncooperative and unlikable. But he was also innocent.

I think it would be beyond terrible to convict an innocent man of first degree murder based on purely circumstantial evidence. I didn't like Scott's personality either. But murder 1 is the most serious of charges.

DNA evidence is still Indirect evidence (circumstantial), it only is submitted to establish a link that the trier of fact can draw on or infer.


I suppose some may consider DNA evidence as Direct, but it still considered Indirect.
 
perhaps his personality and odd behavior helped to convict...... i believe he did it.

This case and the many cases that have followed......... makes me wonder what in society makes some of these disturbed individuals decide on murder?
Most of these cases the killer spouse could walk away .....all seem to be unhappy/ cheating not wanting the family

Just divorce and move on........... yes there are financial complications........... but really the idea to get rid of a spouse and sometimes children to seems very evil and we have seen more of this ......

Same plans used ... spouse is " missing" and they seem to relish the attention of organized searches and media coverage.......
Seems like the financial complications are minute compared to spending the rest of your life in an 8x8 cage,IMHO
 


Top