Did he kill her and his baby? There is no evidence saying he killed them, so what are you opinions?

Did he kill her and his baby? There is no evidence saying he killed them, so what are you opinions?

Other urls found in this thread:

soundcloud.com/saxon_casi/pleasure-driver
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

soundcloud.com/saxon_casi/pleasure-driver

Jesus Christ it's been forever since I heard about this guy. I was living about 15 min away from where they started finding the body back then. He killed her no doubt.

Yes, definitely.

Who even is this?

Thats Scott Peterson. He was put on death row after being found guilty of murduring his wife and unborn son. What makes this case stand out is that there was no evidence shown in court that actually proved he was guilty

Evidence? We don't need no stinking evidence!

Well you cant put a man on death row without any evidence. Give him at least 15 years

>Well you cant put a man on death row without any evidence

In America you can

This

Dude went fishing alone on Christmas morning and wife magically simultaneously disappears and ends up washed up on the shore?

Yep no evidence

That's not evidence. That's not having an alibi.

What fucks my head up is how the moms body was decomposing, but the babys body was not

honestly I don't know. tough one to call. he's stuck by his same story the whole time. didn't he have an alibi for the time of death as well?

that's circumstantial bro

No

The baby stayed in her body until it was expelled as the mother's body decomposed. Entirely explains the inconsistent decomposition

This case was actually handled more poorly than any other case in history. His wife's body was only found near the fishing spot AFTER the police revealed the location of where he was fishing. Magically, the body was found shortly after. So the people that took his wife knew where to drop the body to keep them in the clear.

Also, the decomposition of her body made no sense at all. She was alive for days after she was taken, and the baby was decomposing at a different rate than she was. Which meant it was removed from her body. It was just all sorts of weird.

Truth be told, is was a witch hunt against him from day one, and everyone hated him for cheating on his wife. He's a dumbass, but he more than likely didn't kill his wife and child. There was literally no evidence, and people even said they saw his wife walking with their dog while he was away.

Yes he did. You just don't know what you're talking about. He actually had a receipt somewhere that showed his wife was walking their dog at the same time he was supposedly dropping her body in the body of water.

Circumstantial...evidence. Which the jury can rely on to convict if it points to guilt

Circumstantial evidence is still evidence, fuckwit. Perfectly acceptable for admission. Not to mention that the vast majority of murder cases have no direct evidence so nearly all murder convictions are solely on the basis of circumstantial evidence.

yeah the whole thing seems fucked up when you go back over it. I was like 13 when this happened but there was a special about it not long ago and I went back over stuff and it just doesn't mesh together

whatever happened to reasonable doubt?

Nearly everyone one the jury thought he was innocent, but that fat fuck who thought he was guilty got everyone removed and a whole new jury was in, all of whom thought he was guilty

The juice approves this post

This guy gets it.

>whatever happened to reasonable doubt?

The jury decided that the evidence was beyond a reasonable doubt. The key word is: Beyond.

It's always circumstantial evidence in every case. Your case is poor if circumstantial evidence is all you have.

Laci was on her way to becoming a nice MILF.

He done did it.

...

Can you point me to a source for this that doesn't seem right

Yes he did it. If we can't do it and get away then he can't. OJ did he got away with murder.

Google calcrim 224 for an explanation of how the jury can use circumstantial evidence

The jury said he did.

>so what are you opinions?

No doubt he did it.

Bitch had it coming but it's still wrong.

He admitted he did it a few years back.

There was physical evidence that he transported her dead body around after he killed her

I'm sure he wanted a shaved muff. And Amber always kept a bald twat.

Well, why not just ask the wife if he killed her, or not. Duh!

Moving a body doesn't mean you killed the person. I'm not saying he didn't kill her but evidence that he transported her doesn't prove he murdered her.

>And Amber always kept a bald twat

Laci just wouldn't shut the fuck up. She was always breaking balls.

I dont think user was right about every juror, but i saw a tv docu series about it and a few jurors who found him innocent were taken out because of that fat guy. And the fat guy even mocked scott and was laughing when he found out he was put on death row

Any reasonable person would say that if you move your wife's dead body and dump it in the ocean, without calling the police, that's evidence that you killed her

>Moving a body doesn't mean you killed the person

Yeah, he was inncocently moving his wife's body around.

The show is called "The Murder of Laci Peterson"

That is still not proof that the spouse murdered the other spouse. That is just proof of knowledge of the death. The commission of the death could be due to literally anything without proof of homicide.

That's still not proof. It's just knowledge of the death.

>That is just proof of knowledge of the death.

No, that's proof that you watch too much TV

Nobody believes Scott covered up for another killer.

I too fancy a bald twat.

It's not "just proof of knowledge of the death." It's evidence you were involved in causing her to be dead.

If there's some fantastic further reasonable explanation, fine, but it's still evidence of murder.

Nope. OJ is a murderer. Scott was basically screwed from the get go. The police were incompetent. Information about the case was leaked all the time. They even had people trying to be a juror so that they could find him guilty. They literally didn't know anything about the case except that they "thought" he did it.

The documentary that this guy mentioned showed just how much the jury was willing to overlook basic facts just so Scott would be found guilty.
Hell, they actually had neighbors who said they saw Lacy after Scott left to go fishing. Not to mention a robbery took place across the street, and Lacy went over there and confronted the people who were in the fan. The cops never looked into that case, and even got the timeline wrong for that too.

I watch too much tv because I know a good attorney could make a argument for reasonable doubt if a DA tried to make a case for murder based on the fact that a body was moved?

just watch the interview. dude's guilty as fuck

I didn't see the documentary I don't think. Weren't the jurors excused for misconduct?

he called it awesome
so he could say "i'm fuckin awesome''

It's not evidence of murder. If you and I found a body and moved it then got caught moving it are we guilty of murder if the body was indeed the victim of a homicide? Are we guilty of murder simply because we moved a body?

Why are you using the passive voice now?

You're being stupid. It's ABSOLUTELY evidence of murder. Would it be enough to get beyond reasonable doubt? MAYBE NOT. But it's still EVIDENCE tending to show you and I killed that person. You're conflating separate concepts

>Cheating on wife
>Fishing on Xmas morning near where body was found
>Tries to escape to Mexico
Guilty

I'm not. I just know a good high priced attorney could shoot massive holes in a case based on flimsy evidence of a transported body.

>based on the fact that a body was moved?

Yes. there was evidence he was transporting her corpse in his automobile. And when you add that to the mountain of other evidence, you can deduct that he did it.

I don't think a good lawyer could argue the combined evidence.
It's basic math.
The odds that anyone but Scott was the murderer are astronomical.

Transporting a body is not proof of murder. It's not evidence of murder. It's a crime, but not evidence of murder. A body could be left for months or years in a state where decomposition is greatly prolonged (like freezing). This body could be moved by people who did not kill the person but by your argument the movers of the body killed the person. If I kill someone and stuff them in luggage then take that luggage on a plane, are the luggage handlers guilty of murder because they moved the body?

I'm not talking combined evidence. I'm talking just transporting the body.

He was also on his work computer at the same time someone was browsing e-bay at his home computer (likely his wife). It was probably those guys that were robbing the house across the street and she went over to confront them and they kidnapped/killed her.

Someone's knowing disposal of a dead body tends to show they killed that person. Period.

Can it be explained away? Possibly. Will that evidence alone support a conviction? Maybe not. But it's still evidence.

It was PROBABLY those guys? As in more likely than not? What evidence is there that she confronted anyone?

Yes, he was cheating on his wife.
The body wasn't found until AFTER they released where he was fishing. They literally gave the people who abducted her the location to dispose of the body.
No. He did not try to escape to Mexico. I remember this being a big thing in the documentary, and how his family were angry about how the press handled the situation. He literally had all sorts of stuff in his car because he hated going home. He was being hounded by the press and people he didn't know being at his house when he arrived. So he essentially lived out of his car.

Honest to God, you have no idea what you're talking about. You don't don't state any evidence, because there wasn't any. There was no evidence that her corpse was in his automobile. I don't know where you're pulling that from, except hearsay, but there wasn't nothing in the case manuscripts stating there was.

The odds of it being someone other than Scott was extremely probably. A neighbor of the Peterson's saw Lacy being followed in the park when she was walking her dog. That was the last person who ever saw her alive. The dog was found wandering around their home afterwards, with Lacy nowhere to be found. The receipt that Scott had showed that he couldn't have gone fishing and been following Lacy during the same time frame.

Knowingly disposing of a body is not evidence of murder. The ONLY thing it shows is knowledge of death.

God forbid this was Casey Anthony we were talking about or all the edgy autists would be jumping to her defense. But since it's some autistic dude (seriously, they think Scott Peterson is on the spectrum and one of the reasons he acted strange after Laci went missing) whose wife was murdered then fuck that guy, right?

Being this retarded

The things that were on the eBay searches were things that Lacy liked to buy. They were using the same eBay account because they were married. But yeah, I remember there being a big thing in the documentary about Scott being at work when the these searches were going on in their home. So that's pretty damn hard to do. The jury was basically ignoring things in order to convict him. The couple of jurors who didn't go with the flow were removed.

Remember the cop from another county that had a recording of those thieves discussing Laci Peterson and one guy quickly told the other to shut up and "we don't discuss that". Convenient that the incompetent police lost that tape which he hand delivered to them.

I'm a lawyer. You're wrong.

Thought he was guilty as hell at the time. Have changed my mind completely. So much evidence was not included. Nancy grace hung this stupid bastard on TV every night.

But it boils down to the dog, the neightbour found the dog wandering and put it back in their back yard, She was out walking the dog. If scott took her and killed her in the 50 mins he had to do it to be guilty, leaving the dog out would only have attracted attention for something he was trying to keep secret. Plus the robbery across the street. She went to challange them and they grabbed her leaving the dog behind.

I'm wrong about what?

If you think there isn't evidence he did it, you're the retard.

What you said is fucking wrong, and if you said that shit to me during jury selection I'd have the judge remove your dumb ass for cause

I think you have me mixed up with someone else. Regardless, this threatening tone makes you sound like a true retard.

What makes you think Scott didn't leave the dog out to try to establish this defense?

That other post isn't me. Roll up in court with the only evidence of someone being guilty of murder is the fact that they moved a body and try getting a conviction based on that. Lawfag, TRANSPORTING A BODY IS NOT EVIDENCE THAT THE PERSON WHO MOVED THE BODY COMMITTED MURDER. It isn't even evidence that a murder was committed. If I go move a body right now that means I murdered that person? If my bitch calls me and says help me move this guy I just killed, I'm guilty of murder?

You said this, right?

Knowingly disposing of a body is not evidence of murder. The ONLY thing it shows is knowledge of death.

That's wrong, and it's nonsense, and it's not the law, and it's contrary to the jury instructions

Nah I think that was this dude. I'll let you two get back to it.

Gunna murder my wife, how shall I get away with it? Oh I know I'll leave the dog out in the yard...

Seriously?

...with the leash on, to make it look like she got abducted from the street while out on a walk. You're talking about it like the dog being out shows Scott's innocent. So my question is, what makes you think Scott didn't do that on purpose to make people think that

Grew beard, bleached hair and beard blonde and got a passport right after. There was also a mountain of GPS data that was highly incriminating and I think there was a lover too.

Very guilty.

I am not Just pointing out what you said sounds retarded, why would he think to leave the dog out when if he actually did it, he'd already managed to forge a receipt that proves he was nowhere near his wife when she says abducted?

Let's do an experiment. How about you go move a dead body of someone vaguely connected to you (let's say, a co worker), and don't call the police. When you're caught and then convicted, call me from prison and I'll add $25 to your commissary

I said that. I'm saying transporting a body isn't evidence of murder. What kind of lawfag are you? What's your area of practice?

I could be convicted of handling a corpse but proving I killed the person? How?

Why would he think to leave the dog out? Because this was a highly planned killing, and the dog being found outside with the leash on would help his defense. He must have known he'd be the prime suspect and so he was already trying to establish this alternate killer abduction defense

And yet multiple people who saw him go fishing confirm that he had nothing in his boat that could be a body.

he was cheating on his wife, told his mistress that they would soon be together, the wife washes up on the shore where he went fishing the day she went missing....no other people would have motives to killer her....etc etc. where there's smoke there's fire son

I didn't say the evidence was beyond dispute. I'm saying there is EVIDENCE he killed her, and anyone who says there isn't doesn't understand what the word evidence means

i've never heard them say "i'd like to present a long-winded theory as exhibit A... give me the bag and i'll say it while it's over my mouth".

You say that the fact he went fishing is evidence that he killed her and dumped the body but the fact that he didn't have the body in his boat proves that he wasn't dumping it, so the fact that he went fishing is proof of nothing but that he likes to fish.

hurr durr the police planted the bodee
pic related its you

You're just wrong. For your ease of reference:

Someone's knowing disposal of a dead body tends to show they killed that person. Period.

Can it be explained away? Possibly. Will that evidence alone support a conviction? Maybe not. But it's still evidence.

Plus the tests they did showed his boat would have capsized with the weight of her body if he had dumped it from that same boat. Of course they didn't allow Scott's lawyer to show tape of that during the trial.

He didn't suggest that the police planted the body. He pointed out the fact that by releasing his whereabouts BEFORE the body was found gave an opportunity for someone else to dump the body in an incriminating location. He's not saying the police are corrupt, just that they're incompetent, which is pretty standard among U.S. law enforcement.

A jury of Scott's peers disagrees that it was a "fact that he didn't have the body in his boat." There might have been SOME contrary evidence, but the jury considered and rejected it, which is legitimate and lawful.

And dude, the fact he went fishing on Christmas morning and his dead wife washed up later in the same location is sure as shit evidence he killed her, come on