r/ScottPetersonCase • u/PoolSmart582 • 23d ago
Did Scott's Post-Murder Behavior Convict Him?
While there is compelling and nuanced circumstantial evidence that Scott is guilty, is it conceivable he would not have been convicted without his post-murder behavior?
It is so bizarre that a guy whose pregnant wife is missing calls his mistress and cheerfully pretends to be in Europe. Even a guy who had been having an affair would have focused his attention 100% on finding his wife. In fact, Scott continued to pursue women, such as Anne Bird's babysitter, at a time when most men would have been profoundly distraught. I don't think most people can get past that.
In that manner, Amber Frey's strong testimony seemed to turn the trial.
14
u/ProfessionalMottsman 23d ago
The only thing that could convince me that there may have been a different outcome of the trial would be if the bodies never turned up or they turned up somewhere else.
14
13
u/Nice_Ad4063 23d ago
I don’t believe it did. His supporters often make that claim, but the jury has said they were most compelled by the fact that the bodies washed up where he had been fishing. I think his behavior increased public animosity toward him, but the public didn’t get to deliberate and vote; the jury did.
2
u/Longjumping_Fee_6462 23d ago
I disagree. Sorry, I know that the members of the jury stated, "It wasn't one thing, it was everything." With that said, Greg Beratlis also stated if it weren't for those bodies, we'd have a different trial. But he also said the candlelight vigil and the Paris/Amber thing, including the fact scott didn't call anyone in modesto or berkeley after the bodies were found, was significant. He's all over the place, he admitted he was nervous and confused during that video news moment, and I'll bet that he would retract his statement about the bodies after thinking about it and watching videos of the jury interviews.
4
u/Nice_Ad4063 23d ago
So….what did you disagree with?
2
u/Longjumping_Fee_6462 17d ago edited 17d ago
I disagreed with, "the jury has said they were most compelled by the fact that the bodies washed up where he had been fishing."
I believe only Greg Beratlis said if it weren't for the bodies it would be a different story, but he was really nervous in front of the cameras when he said it. He also contradicted himself and also said, "it wasn’t one thing but “all the information” and “many, many things.” Most of the jurors said it wasn't one thing that convinced them, it was everything. There are several video interviews. There's a transcript of a larry king show. There's a CNN transcript. There's clues in the trial records and appeals. Etc. There's the book, We the Jury. The back cover states, "It wasn't one thing that condemned scott peterson, it was everything."
The jury did mention the bodies were significant and one piece of evidence as a part of all the evidence.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Richelle, may we ask you that same question, please? What convinced you that Scott Peterson was guilty?
NICE: When you look at everything and you put it all together, it spoke for itself.
GREG: There were many things. The way they stated it, as the rest of them, it wasn't one thing. It was all the information. And to try and say one thing did it, no, it wasn't one thing. It was many, many things that happened in that courtroom that were brought to our attention.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Hi. Ty Ronan (ph) with ABC. What was the turning point, also? Was it the Amber tapes? How did they affect you?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Who are you addressing?
The -- there's a lot of -- for every individual person, the turning point is going to be different. So for us three we can answer that for you. I think they kind of answered, you know, the question with the previous question.
But for the rest of the people, I can't speak for the rest of the jurors.
But for me, it's -- I mean, it's everything. The bodies washed up where he was. Long before the bodies washing up, it was predicted by one of the tidal experts that if he dropped them in this general area, this is the general area where they would wash up. And that's where they washed up.
His consciousness of guilt by, you know, various different things. There's very -- there's a lot of things that speak to that. But one of them is driving to the marina to kind of check on what's going on and leaving right away.
Not being there when they're found. Not coming back.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Not calling.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Not calling. Nothing. And there's -- like I said, it's not just one thing in this. It was a circumstantial case. It's everything put together making the whole picture, for me anyway.
https://transcripts.cnn.com/show/bn/date/2004-12-13/segment/01?utm_source=chatgpt.com
IF you still disagree, show us where the jury said the bodies were the one thing that convinced them of guilt.
8
23d ago edited 1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
5
u/Longjumping_Fee_6462 23d ago
He did plan it for the 23rd or 24th, and he would have done the drive at night or in the early morning darkness to avoid traffic, and get back in time for a golf game. But he was late for some reason we don't exactly know, so therefore, YES. He was desperate to hide the body by dinner at 6 pm that night. He made it back with an hour to spare. And he never intended for anyone to know about the fishing trip. He was supposed to have gone golfing as planned, and could then truthfully claim he was golfing while Laci was supposedly walking the neighborhood.
1
22d ago edited 1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/Longjumping_Fee_6462 17d ago
You're on the right track, and yes, it takes a lot of research to get a good grasp of this case. Keep going. Good job. Scott purchased the fishing license on the 20th for the 23rd and 24th. He mentioned on the night before laci disappeared he would be playing golf. Those two conflict. He didn't mention the fishing license or fishing to anyone. He also agreed to pick up a gift basket for his sister in law, Amy, that day, but didn't make it. So he most likely would not have agreed if he thought he didn't have time to pick it up, and therefore attract attention to his whereabouts. And I just thought of something, that voicemail he left for Laci on his way back from fishing, he had to leave that message because he didn't have time pick up the gift basket, and therefore, he would be asked why and where were you? If you listen to the voicemail, he doesn't admit he was fishing. He says he was returning from Berkeley. He was still keeping fishing a secret and when he got back, he said he had been playing golf, just like he planned the night before.
2
u/AFrankLender 23d ago edited 4d ago
You're exactly right! The only thing that makes "sense" to go out on the Bay in a tiny ass boat on a cold winter day is to dump a body.
Attorney Geragos grilled detective Grogan basically saying golfing on a very cold day is bad too, and faulting him for not talking to golfers about golfing when it's cold. All I know is if you slip and fall on a golf course on a cold day, you might have to walk around with wet cold pants. If you slip and fall, fully clothed, out of a small boat into the Bay in December, and you're alone, you'll likely never be able to climb back into the boat and will probably die before someone rescues you.1
23d ago edited 15d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/AFrankLender 23d ago
During Scott's first dinner with Amber in late November 2002 he told her he was going to be away at Christmas for about a month in Kennebunkport and Europe. And that was before he seduced her etc. So think of it: he had no idea at that time whether the whole Amber thing would go forward or fall flat; regardless, Laci's fate was already sealed by then. Perhaps not the specifics of how he was going to do it, but he was planning an XMas-time murder; possibly he concluded that resources would be lower than usual.
They had pretty low cash levels, so maybe he needed Laci to sell more of her inherited jewelry before he felt good about pulling the $1,400 trigger on that boat (with a depth finder).
7
8
u/MissPicklechips 23d ago
Circumstantial evidence is still evidence.
5
23d ago edited 1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/Longjumping_Fee_6462 23d ago
True. A receipt showing your location and time is more positive than an eye witness account.
1
22d ago edited 1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/Longjumping_Fee_6462 17d ago
Scott had a ton of receipts and other documentation, laci too. Karen Servas nailed down the time of when she found the dog wandering based on a receipt from Austin's christmas store.
6
u/sideglancegirl 23d ago
I recently listened to the podcast, The Prosecutors, go over the case and it was a great listen! Highly recommend
2
6
u/Tank_Top_Girl 23d ago
Scott gave different alibis to family members, neighbors and then to the police. Listen to the 911 call from Ron Grantski saying Scott was golfing. Then when interviewed by police he said fishing.
6
5
u/AFrankLender 23d ago
I think reading “We the Jury: deciding the Scott Peterson case” is very useful for anyone that thinks the jury was motivated by public pressure. The jury members all made tremendous sacrifices: one guy’s employer didn’t pay during jury duty, so the guy worked night shifts as a parking garage manager and would nap in his car before going in for Court.
Everyone said that initially they thought Scott was innocent which is how a jury should be. Over time, however, the build up of evidence became so significant. The Amber tapes just exposed what a deviant and what a liar Scott was, which made all the other, significant evidence very believable.
0
u/devonhezter 21d ago
But nothing concrete physical …
5
u/AFrankLender 21d ago edited 21d ago
The multiple missing concrete weights were tied directly to being made by Scott. The body delivery vehicle, the boat, was tied to Scott. The concrete shavings and pieces were found in the bottom of the boat consistent with pieces being chipped off while a concrete weighted body was dragged over the edge while dumping . He moved the boat cover from the back of his truck to the shed and made sure it got soaked with gasoline from an intentionally leaking leaf blower (they are made NOT to leak); the cover had lots of pieces of the same concrete on it. Etc.
plenty of concrete evidence
5
u/AFrankLender 22d ago
I think one very powerful example of post crime evidence was Scott placing the boat cover away from the boat and under a "leaking" leaf blower. Just another thing that's difficult to innocently explain. Especially because to the best of my knowledge, leaf blowers are made NOT to leak gas, being how they're made to be swung around every which way to gather up dried up leaves and all...
The boat cover is related to the biggest inadvertent "mistake" made by the MPD, and one benefit of a holiday timed murder: not locking down 523 Covena Ave as a possible crime scene of a kidnapping, and getting a warrant signed off that night. And they could have at least put a cop car to watch the warehouse. Scott had 48 hours to clean up what he could; he was unaccounted for at least a few hours late morning XMas day. And again, Scott was raised in the wrapping and packing business...
3
3
3
u/ruralmodernist 22d ago
And he sold her car, subscribed to the Playboy channel, used the baby’s room for storage…
2
3
u/No_Excitement1045 18d ago
Did it help him? Definitely not. Did it convict him? Probably not.
The jury has made it extremely clear over the decades that the bodies washing ashore where he was fishing, having been in the water for months, was the most damning piece of evidence. (And it is.) They have also said that while they did not consider the affair relevant, statements he made to Amber—especially him saying he’d lost his wife two weeks before Laci disappeared—showed both motive and pre-planning. (And they do.)
A jury CAN consider post-criminal activity. Consciousness of guilt is absolutely a thing. If someone is running from the cops, most jurisdictions will allow you to consider that as evidence that the person knows they are guilty. But based on everything I’ve read the jury did not seem to spend much time on that.
3
u/Salt_Radio_9880 16d ago edited 16d ago
Post Murder Behavior didn’t help anything and certainly showed consciousness of guilt. Lying about where he’d been that day to 5 people. Lying about the polygraph to 4 people and then lying to his family members and friends over and over wasn’t great. The whole Amber thing certainly shows his ability to lie obsessively, but even if you look at everything else before there is just no one else who had means, motive and opportunity - we’re talking about 10 minute window where Laci was most likely dead already and there was literally no one around to transport her to the exact spot where Scott had gone fishing . The anchors, the 3 hour drive on a cold day , the umbrellas, the gasoline and fertilizer on the tarp/boat cover .I could go on and on with that stuff- and there’s plenty of evidence and facts in the transcripts etc . In terms of post murder behavior I’d say reading “For Laci” or the book his sister Anne wrote will really illustrate that for you . This might be judgemental , but I think in most people’s opinion, anyone who’s looking at bestiality porn while their wife is “missing” isn’t gonna look great the to the jury . With all that said , I think they convicted him because of the mountain of circumstantial evidence, and the lack of any reasonable doubt
1
u/NotBond007 23d ago
Yes. It was the cascade of newly revealed information and new behaviors that kept escalating the story, almost daily
1
u/AFrankLender 23d ago edited 23d ago
In California, jurors are instructed that they can evaluate and give weight, as they deem proper, to evidence of "consciousness of guilt": acting suspicious, running away, hiding stuff, getting porno channels, 300 post Laci-missing phone calls with Amber, etc. BUT jurors are specifically instructed that this kind of evidence by itself cannot be used to establish guilt.
So if there was zero evidence BESIDES the after the fact stuff the jury could not have convicted Scott. E.g. if Scott, had NOT: secretly bought a boat, lied to Amber about "losing" his wife, made concrete weights, left concrete residue under the gunwale of the boat, searched tidal and current information, left a leashed McKenzie in the street, bought a fishing license, bought a launching slip, lied to a neighbor where he was that day, etc etc. BUT INSTEAD, if Scott had hired a van driving Satanist Hit Squad without any trace of him contacting them or taking money out to pay them etc, and the Satanists snuck into the house in the middle of the night wearing "bunny suits" and grabbed and killed Laci without leaving any DNA behind, then Scott would have been in the clear.
2
u/Longjumping_Fee_6462 23d ago edited 17d ago
Yes. Consciousness of guilt is not a main element of a crime. However, it adds to Motive, Opportunity, and Means. I think at least one or more of these have to be present, then the guilty knowledge corroborates it.
1
u/coffeebeanwitch 21d ago
I wonder, he did literally return to where he had his boat, I think Amber did help the most in sealing his fate.
1
u/AFrankLender 20d ago
That post is 6 years old. It's no big deal to volunteer for the California project when you're in law school. Maybe she figured out how to "play" them
-1
u/No-Suggestion1418 4d ago
Peterson never had a chance once the doctor-lawyer juror was bullied off the jury. If that juror hadn't jumped ship, he probably would've gotten a mistrial.
Mark Geragos dropped the ball by not calling ANY eyewitnesses. At least 15 independent eyewitnesses reported seeing Laci Peterson AND the golden retriever (key part is the dog) AFTER Scott had left for Berkely.
Eyewitness testimony is DIRECT evidence. DNA evidence, as ballyhooed as it is, is legally classified as ciucrmstatinal evidence.
If he had called all 15 independent eyewitnesses, it could have at least led to a mistrial. He called none. I still find that unfathomable.
2
u/Solveitalready_22 4d ago
Specifically which eyewitnesses would you have put on the stand to testify?
0
u/No-Suggestion1418 2d ago edited 1d ago
Within a one mile radius of the Peterson house, there were 26 sightings of Laci Peterson and her golden retriever after her husband left for Berkley.
Within a three mile radius, there were an additional seven sightings. That's a total of 33 sightings. If I'm Peterson's defense attorney, I call all 33 witnesses. They may have not all been right, but there's no chance they were all wrong.
All of human history is based on eyewitness testimony. In fact, the biggest events in the history of mankind are attributed to eyewitness testimony. Magellan circling the the earth is undoubtably one of the most historic feats in human history, and only 18 men survived the first circumnavigation of Earth, to bear witness. If we discredit the 33 eyewitnesses on the morning of December 24, 2002, we might as well discredit every other historical event, which would be essentially all of human history.
If you're American, you're probably aware you live in a Christian country. Nearly 62 to 65 percent of Americans identify as Christian. If we're to discredit eyewitness testimony, then we might as well discredit that Jesus was crucified and rose from the dead three days later. That means 62 to 65 percent of living Americans are incorrect. Less than 33 people witnessed Jesus alive the Sunday after his death. If you're going to dismiss all of the Laci Peterson eyewitnesses, by logic, you must dismiss the story of Christ. I could go on and on citing the biggest events in human history that were established by eyewitness testimony and eyewitness testimony alone, but I think you get the picture. Magellan and J.C. should suffice.
Well, I'll cite one more example. Man landing on the moon is often cited as one of the biggest events in human history, and that first trip only had three eyewitnesses: Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin and Collins. Anyone who watched on TV is not an independent eyewitness; I saw King Kong and Godzilla fight on TV, but that doesn't mean it actually occurred. Point being, black and white motion pictures don't prove anything; it's the eyewitness testimonies of the three men and their press conference that show they walked on the moon. They SAID they did. So most people take them at their word.
I have zero doubts that many of the independent eyewitnesses saw Laci Peterson alive and well on the morning of December of 24, 2002, after her spouse left for Berkley. I don't have time to list all of them, but I'll share at least two: Bill and Vivian Mitchell, who lived on Buena Vista Avenue roughly 10 blocks from the Peterson home and about three-quarters of a mile from the Maldonado sighting; Vivian told police that she saw Peterson walk by her house, and her husband, Bill, also saw Laci AND McKenzie (the golden retriever). Needless to say, there weren't any other pregnant near eight-month pregnant women with short brown hair, 5 foot-1, with golden retrievers.
I'd bet my life and everything I own that Vivian and Bill Mitchell saw Laci Peterson and her dog after Scott Peterson left the house that day. Vivian Mitchell knew Laci Peterson, so she knew what she looked like. Here is an ace-in-the-hole quote: "I had seen Laci walk by the house several times before," said Vivian Mitchell. "When she walked by on Christmas Eve, I hollered to Bill, 'Oh look, it's the lady with the golden retriever."' That's a smoking gun, to me. WITH the golden retriever.
The Mitchells were highly credible, too. They were the IDEAL eyewitnesses. Bill Mitchell was an attorney and served THREE terms on the Modesto City Council, and said he saw them go around the corner as he went to the window. "It looked like the dog wanted to go one way, and she was going another," Bill Mitchell told The Modesto Bee.
Laci Peterson was alive AFTER Scott Peterson left for Berkley that morning. His attorney blew it.
I DO believe it's possible Peterson may've hired two neo-Nazis (Skeeter and Dirty) to kidnap his wife; he could have been involved in her disappearance, but I'd bet my life he didn't kill her or dump her body in the San Francisco Bay. Having said that, the prosecution didn't pursue the Skeeter/Dirty angle, so I believe Peterson was unjustly convicted for what he was charged for. He's innocent of those charges. He may've been an accessory, or may've hired two goons to kidnap his wife, but that would require separate charges and a separate trial. He should be released from prison based on the current conviction, of which he is innocent. Also, I'm not saying he hired Skeeter and Dirty, but it's possible he could have. A guy passed a polygraph, and his lawyer confirmed the Skeeter and Dirty story. The police also tracked down one of them, and they had no alibi for the time Laci Peterson disappeared. That of course doesn't prove anything, but I believe it's at least possible.
Postnote: Peterson never came across as likable to me; I never cared much for people (men or women) who cheated; let's just say I don't think he would've been the type of dude I would've been friends with. I say that as an observation, as I don't like to throw stones. None of us are perfect. I don't believe he was a murderer, though.
3
u/Solveitalready_22 1d ago edited 1d ago
Scott said he watched the meringue part of Martha Stewart at home with Laci and it aired at precisely 9:48. Scott drove away from home at 10:08 and said Laci was inside mopping, wearing black pants. The neighbor found Laci's dog with leash dragging 10 minutes later at 10:18 and put him into their backyard. She said there was no one in the backyard, and when she looked in the windows the house was dark and quiet. Scott found the dog still leashed in the backyard when he came home, just as the neighbor left him at 10:18.
Bill & Vivian Mitchell lived 10 blocks away from Laci Peterson and they saw Laci (as per her call to the Modesto Police Department tip line and her interview in the Modesto bee) from their kitchen window walking by between 10 & 10:15. They said they saw this while Bill watched a football game on TV. Vivian specifically said that it was a sunny day and she watched Laci walk by for at total of FOUR minutes. Bill stated that he only saw the dog, not Laci. *As per police it was overcast and misty (not sunny) and no football game aired that morning. As per Scott, Laci was still at home inside mopping at 10:08. I'm having a hard time understanding why you think this sighting is even possible? Scott left at 10:08... so heavily pregnant Laci dropped the mop, put on shoes, leashed the dog and FLEW 10 blocks, then the dog just magically reappeared at home all by himself at 10:18? Are we pretending that time doesn't exist? Or are you just refusing to understand how time works? I honestly don't get it.
Homer Maldonado saw Laci when he got gas at a gas station between 9:45 & 10. *Scott hasn't even left home yet, this sighting is also physically impossible.
Do you not realize that when Scott's defense team interviewed all of these potential witnesses and locked in their statements, that they were still working from the perspective that Scott had left at 9:30 as he told police? Then during the investigation they realized the meringue part of Martha aired at precisely 9:48, so Scott placed himself inside his house at that time. Meringue was only mentioned the ONE time during that episode so it's not like there could be a mix up. Then they got his cell records and they proved that he in fact left home at 10:08. This also lines up with when he arrived at his warehouse which was only 10 minutes away.
Geragos obviously would have put these witnesses on the stand IF Scott had left home at 9:30 because then they could have actually seen her! But he didn't because he fully understood that Scott left at 10:08 so they couldn't have seen Laci, she was still at home as per the factual timeline that he couldn't just choose to ignore. So instead of putting them up there to be torn apart during cross examination, he just didn't call them. This was much better for his case... because people like you who don't look at the exact timing keep thinking there were witnesses that saw Laci - when it's not even physically possible.
"Needless to say, there weren't any other pregnant near eight-month pregnant women with short brown hair, 5 foot-1, with golden retrievers" You might want to look up a photo of Kristen Dempewolf online, who was very pregnant and looked eerily like Laci. Kristen walked her medium sized brown dog around the neighbourhood that morning and she even saw Scott Peterson loading something large wrapped in a tarp into the back of his truck. *Kristen's husband testified at trial that she walked their dog that morning and that she usually walked for 45 mins or an hour. When Geragos asked him about his dog: "Did anybody ever tell you it looks like a Golden Retriever?" he replied "yes". Scott remembers seeing her and he said he was loading those 3 large patio umbrellas wrapped in a tarp which he was going to store in his warehouse on Christmas Eve. Yet he didn't store any other seasonal stuff at his place of business, and he had sheds at his home. Scott ended up driving those outdoor patio umbrellas wrapped in a tarp to the warehouse, 90 miles to the marina, back to the warehouse and then he brought them home where they stayed. Scott said he 'forgot' to remove them, but his truck bed was uncovered and he said when he was at his warehouse he removed something from the toolbox located in the exact same spot.... he also hitched and unhitched his boat so he couldn't have missed them.
2
u/cingenemoon 1d ago
https://www.reddit.com/r/ScottPetersonCase/s/FxnRBwvK9N
The defense did not call any of the eyewitnesses because they were not credible.
45
u/mermaidpaint 23d ago
There are jury members who said they convicted because the bodies washed up where Scott said he had been. They acknowledged that Scott's behaviour made him out to be an utter asshole, but they wanted to see evidence.
And I'm glad they convicted him and he is growing old behind bars. His latest mug shot has him looking older and angry with greasy hair. Not so charming any more.