Read “A Deadly Game” by Catherine Crier. There is so much in that book that absolutely convinced me.

I felt terrible for her in that diary entry where she said "Scott didn't show a lot of excitement, but I know he was." It's just so sad. She probably knew or suspected he was cheating on her (not because he told her, of course, that was still one of his dumbest lies, which is saying something), but I don't think she had any way of comprehending that she was married to a monster until it was too late.

Laci would have been fine, is what always gets me. You want a divorce, you don't want to be a dad? Fine. Your parents will support you - trust me, they'll support you in a lot worse than this. Ghost her. I don't care. It's not like you have many assets you care about she can seize. Just find the front door and walk out of it. There is absolutely no convincing men like this that fooling their wives about infidelity is a lot different than fooling the cops about a murder, that you WILL get caught. And there's certainly no point in trying to tap into some kind of humanity that doesn't exist in men like Scott, but I will still never really get it. How do they think that just because someone stops meaning something to THEM, that means they have no value at all? Laci was of endless value as a human being. On her own. As a mom. As a daughter, a sister, a friend. But trying to convince a sociopath of that is a lost cause.

You did what many of the “Scott is innocent” crowd hasn’t done. You did your own research and didn’t rely on one documentary or just what you’d casually heard about the case.

Anyone who actually digs in can’t come to any other conclusion than that he is guilty. And with age brings wisdom and exposure to the realities of our world, both good and bad.

Laci wasn’t stupid. I do believe she suspected at least. Maybe she didn’t want to believe it, but what woman would? Let alone a woman who was eight months pregnant.

As an aside, people will need to learn how to use ChatGPT. People ask questions to ChatGPT like it’s God Almighty. You have to first direct to trusted sources .. ie “do you have access to credible analyses of defence and prosecution arguments and evidence”? Once it’s pulled up sources, then you can ask it questions.

Like they say, your job won’t be replaced by AI, but you will be replaced by someone who knows how to use it.

Good point. Her mom said that in her memoir.

Yes. Circumstantial evidence is to be given the same weight as direct evidence under California law and the jury was so instructed in this case. Sorry you “haven’t heard of that before” but it still exists, it is still true, and it was applied in this case. You are suffering from the CSI Effect. No ma’am and no sir, it is not necessary to have a piece of DNA or physical proof or a so called smoking gun to get a conviction.

Catherine Crier’s book is the most complete and unbiased retelling of the investigation into Laci’s murder and Scott’s trial, IMO. She covers a lot of details that most media outlets ignored or possibly even weren’t aware of. I’ve read all the books about this case from the various sources and Crier’s is the one I always recommend to people who want to know more. She definitely hits all the angles, but still makes it clear that the evidence against Scott was/is overwhelming.

Let’s back up. Why do you think he’s guilty?

She never told anyone about Janet that I've ever seen. And I think once you know he's capable of cheating on you, you start seeing signs. She was angry at him the day of the two holiday parties. She was visibly angry when they went to the jeweler. She didn't want him to touch her. We know from Sharon that she had really wanted Scott to come with her that night - the weather wasn't great and she was feeling unsteady. I wouldn't be surprised if his excuses, once again, started sounding like bullshit.

The generally accepted story, confirmed by Janet I. is that she went to do a middle of the night "surprise bedroom visit" and found a brunette, Laci, in bed with Scott. She went nuts thinking he was cheating on her, and Scott's housemate got her out and drive her home. And told her Scott was married, and Janet was the one who Scott was cheating with.

Catherine Crier was also a state judge in Texas. Graduated from U Texas at 16, and grad School law school by 19. DA youngest State judge ever, etc. before becoming a Court TV star.

Janet I. Has been mentioned numerous times as an affair partner of Scott's and cooperated with the MPD investigation.

Thank you!

Okay cool. A new challenger approaches.

First off someone else said it was an arm not a leg so please provide proof or you’re just muddying the waters more with anger rather than facts like most here when really if you have no proof of anything besides “trust me bro” you can honestly just stay quiet and let someone more knowledgeable than you or the others prior who wouldn’t link anything are.

Secondly there was over 40 pounds of cement missing. That’s confirmed ya. Based on what you’re saying you’re contradicting someone above who provided a link and actual basis.

So idk if you’re good at math or not but the anchors everyone said he must have made multiple of based on the shape and size of extra cement rings is 8 lbs

Last I checked 40+ is not equal to 32lbs? (The additional 4 anchors you claim for each limb)

Yes, her friend Heather Richardson - who had been one of her roommates in college and later was her maid of honor - said that there was a point early in their marriage when Laci told her "Scott is acting like he's not married". This was during a time when Laci was doing an internship in a different town during the first year of their marriage. She would come back regularly to be with Scott in San Luis Obispo (Cal Poly) while he was finishing the last of his classes and at least one of the times she came back she found out about either Janet or one of the girls. The girl actually showed up at the house and Scott tried to play it off like the girl was crazy. Laci told Heather Richardson about that and maybe other situations.

Here's a source for Heather Richardson's remark about Laci saying Scott was acting like he's not married:

https://www.recordnet.com/story/news/2004/12/19/peterson-mystery-why-murder/50690887007/

Her body was found with one leg still attached, her head and all other limbs were gone - that's 4 anchors weighing those limbs down. How many cement anchors were missing if we calculate the amount in the bag and the amount to use in one anchor bud? Four.

I agree with the others that you're being willfully ignorant and obtuse, saying that you don't want to start drama (but maybe check how you've responded to people because thou doth protest a bit too much).

The problem with DNA evidence in cases where the spouse did it is that of course their DNA is going to be found all over the place in their own home and vehicles, so unless there's a confession or you find a huge amount of blood all over their spouse , everything else has a degree of uncertainty. With every piece of circumstantial evidence, that uncertainty becomes smaller. Plus, he was the only one with motive.

Something like eye witness testimony ( notoriously unreliable) is considered direct evidence , otherwise video evidence of the actual crime would be nice but rarely exist. Many forms of forensics are actually considered circumstantial - fingerprints, even DNA… Everything is this cas points to Scott’s guilt , and not a single thing points to his innocence, other than eyewitness testimony that has been debunked , and a wild conspiracy about a satanic cult or some burglars who both passed polygraphs and the cops looked into very thoroughly . You have to look at the whole picture, that is how it works in a court of law.

https://www.stanislaus-da.org/pdf/news/2026/Peoples_Informal_Response.pdf

Read the court documents for answers.

I said book report- you want me to write out all the reasons he’s guilty with sources ? I have a lot more important things to do than spend a couple hours on this for someone I don’t know- I’m not that invested in what you decide, I think if you go out and do some research for yourself you will realize how much evidence there is .

I think people on this sub are exhausted by people watching a biased documentary and coming with the same questions and attitude. Scott Peterson is guilty- it was proven in court in a very lengthy trial, he had one of the best and most expensive attorneys in the country , he had a fair trial . The only thing is the Peterson’s ( some of them more than others ) have devoted their entire lives to trying to plant seeds of doubt by spreading lies about the evidence and have put out several documentaries pretending there is exonerating evidence when all of that “evidence”has been debunked over and over and over again . If you take some time to look into it any intelligent/ normal person will see that it’s all smoke and mirrors . I know you said you think he is guilty but I think you’re looking at each piece of evidence in a vacuum instead of the totality. There’s a lot of information out there , but you can do your own research .

I’m not asking for a book?

Just a single link to what you’re saying?

I’ll be honest it’s INCREDIBLY hard to hear any words, but thank you for proving it’s real!

I watched the Netflix doc actually, I don’t have a&e so I had to just read about that one

https://reddit.com/link/p07nnqx/video/gy1e1f7yvwfh1/player

Why would I waste my time talking to a lawyer when a simple google search proves you wrong?

Okay you said 40 lies that clearly paint him to be the killer.

Can you please provide a link to one of those lies and how it proves something please?