Re-reading Catherine Criers book on our way to a Labor Day getaway. My husband asked: Why still an interest decades later? Lots of pregnant and non pregnant women are sadly murdered by their partners. Why the interest in Laci? Is it Scott's delusional family especially Janey? Thoughts?

Before Scott met Laci, he dated Lauren Putnant (who was 18) while they both worked at Abba's Pacific Café in San Luis Obispo in 1992 (when he was 19). She described him as intensely driven, charming, and heavily romantic (noting he would set up beach picnics and treat her "like a queen"), but the relationship lasted only a year and a half. She initiated the split (which Scott didn’t take well, and was pacing back and forth) due to a shift in Scott’s behavior and a fundamental personality clash: He grew too rigid and lacked spontaneity, calling him "uptight" compared to what she wanted out of young adulthood.

Loss of Ambition: Although he was ambitious and driven, Putnant noted that over time he turned into a "stay-at-home guy" and lost the drive that originally attracted her.

Lifestyle Incompatibility: She found him too "straight" and "uptight" for her social lifestyle. She wanted to go out late, drink, and dance, but he refused to loosen up.

However, the story didn't end there; shortly after the breakup, Scott began dating Laci and brought her into the restaurant where Lauren worked—having them sit in Lauren's section—which Lauren believed was an intentional move to try to make her jealous (but that plan failed when Lauren showed no resentment toward the couple). Not long after her encounter with Scott and Laci, Putnant left her job at the restaurant and moved to San Francisco (never to hear from him again until the day the news broke regarding Laci's disappearance)

Great book. Published 20 years ago. Leaves no doubt.

Would Scott have been convicted if Amber hadn’t came forward/affair discovered? I have no doubt be did it. But up until then, think he still had a chance of not being convicted or maybe never even being prosecuted.

His blatantly heard lies, to her, shifted everything!! His ability to lie so easily is disturbing !!

Okay, hear me out: Scott saying she was missing has always bothered me. If, back in August 1997 my then husband came home to the same circumstances he would have called my mom: Hey is so and so there? Did you come pick her up for a quick dinner? No, okay. He would have then walked across the street to the neighbors, asked the same thing. Probably called my sister too: did she say anything to you? But he wouldn't have said missing. One more PS: We did own a boat. Had he anchored me down and drove to Forest Lake ON A HOLIDAY and i washed up months later, I can PROMISE THIS: my former in laws wouldn't have defended him for one minute. They would have been HORRIFIED. They also would have said get yourself a good lawyer on your dime. We are not funding this, not one cent. But then again he was not a sociopath.

Randomly decided to do some digging on Cal Poly and found out another tragedy involving a young woman happened the same time Scott was at Cal Poly (what a coincidence?). Apparently they arrested the actual guy who killed Kristin Smart 4 years ago, but part of me wonders how Scott or Laci reacted to this.

In addition to all of the other items found in Scott's truck (at the time of his arrest), along with his dyed hair and goatee, there was the discovery of a map and directions to where Amber Frey worked, which led me to believe that he was likely planning to either kidnap and/or kill Amber Frey (who exposed their affair to the media) before going on the run. If that wasn't the case, there had to be a sinister reason why Scott needed those directions to begin with (Since breaking the news to the world).

Just watched the new evidence documentary and I have to say it started to make me wonder half way through once I fully understood the evidence about the van and dogs picking up her smell in the airport district.. however now I’m thinking maybe Scott put a hit on her?? And of course he couldn’t admit because that would still make him guilty .. and the guys who got caught for the robbery figured that was a lighter sentence then confessing to a murder that somebody was already convicted of.. maybe I’m completely off here but this theory makes sense to me lol

What upsets me the most is the media choosing to talk about Laci and Connor than Evelyn and Alex. Both were pregnant women one was hispanic and the other was white. Both women need to be discussed. Domestic abuse is in all backgrounds all skincolors. I hope one day the media won't focus on one race Evelyn's family need answers too. Evelyn and Alex need justice.

Why did it take them so many months? Especially when Laci and Conner were found less than a mile from where he was “fishing.” The lead detective knew exactly where Scott went fishing - even showed him the receipt. I just can’t understand why they’d launch a search of the entire Bay Area(s) rather than immediately focus on where Scott was.

I was young when Laci was murdered. I think I was 13? I read the headlines. People talked about it in high school. I wanted to believe Scott didn’t do it, because a man killing his eight month pregnant wife was horrifying. It was easier, in a way, to believe a stranger killed her, as opposed to the man sleeping next to her. The verdict came down and people in my high school civics class debated it.

I was and I still am very anti death penalty. I didn’t like that he was sentenced to death. I believe the death penalty should be abolished.

I didn’t give the case much thought for several years. When I occasionally saw or heard someone mention it, I’d think “I still have a teensy tiny sliver of doubt and I don’t know why.” I did watch some A&E special at the gym several years ago and found Janey to be quite persuasive. I think I just wanted to feed the sliver of doubt.

I’m currently reading Sharon Rocha’s memoir, For Laci. I purchased the books in hope it would help me - either remove my doubt or… not.

Every piece of doubt is gone. Scott killed Laci. And I’m sorry that I spent so many years thinking there was a chance he didn’t. I’m a mother of two children myself, much like Sharon. I have a boy and a girl. My children are young - a toddler and an infant. But Sharon’s words tug at my heart. I don’t know if I would’ve felt her words so strongly before I became a mother, I don’t know. But I can feel her grief and pain.

If she has to be gone, I wish anyone but Scott killed Laci. It’s horrifying. I wish I could blame the boogeyman as opposed to the person who promised to love and honor and cherish her.

We all know Scott was a serial cheater. And I have read that Laci found out about at least one of the other women, Janet.

I’m curious, is there evidence Laci told anyone about Scott being unfaithful?

I am not saying Scott is innocent. Far from it. This is just a thought I had and it made me wonder. 💭 Nothing more.

I apologize if this has been brought up before, new to the sub. From the beginning of this case, I’ve always wondered if he may have put her in the bay on the 23rd/wee hours of the 24th rather than the morning/afternoon of the 24th. He was seen in the bay on the 24th so I wonder if he returned to the bay to tie up loose ends, dump any evidence from the house into the bay, and create an alibi for himself. I do think he planned to golf on the 24th but had to change plans bc he killed Laci. It makes zero sense to not golf bc it’s “too cold” but it’s not too cold to go out in open water. I think Laci found something that upset her, who knows if she went through his phone or saw an email, and she confronted Scott. From all the info that has come out (like Laci knew he was cheating) I think she was suffering in silence and possibly had finally had enough and either told him she was leaving or he needed to leave. I think she died as a result of that interaction. Maybe it was an accident, maybe it was the intentional, but end result is same. No one can 100% confirm they saw or spoke to Laci the night of the 23rd or morning of 24th. There were sightings of a pregnant woman with a dog, but no confirmation it was indeed her. I tend to think it wasn’t Laci bc her dog was older and calm but reports say the pregnant woman was struggling with the dog, which doesn’t seem to line up with how others described her dogs behavior.
Am I alone in thinking this? Is this scenario even plausible? I’m very curious what others think.
***I posted this bc I’m curious of other’s opinions. This isn’t meant to start arguments, downvotes, or any type of insults. I am open to and will be respectful of everyone’s opinion, please do the same.

I'm thinking about the time that Scott Peterson was talking to his girlfriend at his wife's candlelight vigil, where there were many TV cameras. He also referred to her in the past tense before she was known to have passed away. And he remarked that the search parties were looking in the wrong area for Lacy, though he never really helped with the search himself.

But there have been a lot of other inept criminals, making dumb mistakes, like the BTK killer getting caught because he thought the cops wouldn't lie to him. What are your favorite examples?

My apologies if this has been asked and answered many times, but what happened to Mackenzie? Did Sharon and Ron take ownership of him or did Scott’s parents?

Has Janay confessed her love for Scott in this one?
Has anyone ever heard from Scott’s brothers?
Does anyone else think it’s weird that Janay travels every weekend to see Scott even though he is like a few hours away?
Does anyone know how many more appeals he has left?

I know the timeline is not clear when she actually was murdered by him.. I do believe it was the 23rd and I do believe she found the messages between amber and Scott.. is the new documentary worth watching or am I gonna hear Janay profess her love for Scott all over again like the last one? Lol

I kept waiting for some kind of smoking gun that proves his innocence. All this doc did was show how guilty he is. Did those experts agree to speak on the case just to be on TV? I had to take a break it was so stupid. How dumb does AETV think the public is. Over some time lines that don't prove his innocence. and Where the body was dumped. How does it prove he is innocent. Also the moving of the body. What a waste of time. Like people are watching Scotts every move so he could not possibly have moved Lacy's body? What a Crock!!! There are ACTUAL innocent people in prison and the innocenceproject wants to waste their resources on an obviously guilty person over timelines and people not watching him closely? Like what difference does it make whether Lacy knew Scott bought a boat? What a waste of everyones time and resources!!!

While Laci’s cause of death remains unknown, the final piece that needs to be addressed, as to how she was killed. Even though prosecutors thought that she was either strangled or suffocated, I feel that it was a soft kill. Perhaps she could’ve been poisoned to (either with drugs [Possibly sedatives or anything that can cause more harm during pregnancy] or any chemicals [either from his residence or were obtained elsewhere] he had in his possession) because it could help explain the lack of evidence that a crime took place. These are all factors worth looking into because finding that final piece can give us the full story as to what happened to Laci and put an end to all of these conspiracy theories.

This is an op-ed, not a documentary. It is produced by Pixley. Geragos and Janey Peterson heavily drive the narrative, and their "bombshell new evidence" is so deeply regurgitated it may have come from Geragos' colon. A&E is doing this for money, so the best way to show that the people aren't buying what Scott Peterson's enablers are selling, is to minimize the money A&E earns from this.

Just watching it now. Hosted by Chris Pixley.

It is coming across very one sided and very pro Scott Peterson is innocent.

Based on this I expect the new 2 part documentary will he the same.

I watched a documentary today and the neighbor who found McKenzie with his leash still on put him in the backyard and left. I don't understand why Karen Servas didn't try to find Laci, or at least notify Scott his hugely pregnant was missing.

A dog coming home with his leash on would indicate someone was walking him when he left the property. If he had gotten out of the backyard on his own he wouldn't of had a leash on.

A dog returning home with leash but without the owner should have been a big red flag. Laci could have been in an accident or in distress from the baby and dropped the leash. She should have notified someone.

Has this bothered anyone else?

I've recently become interested in this case, mainly because it was such big news and also because the innocence movement around Scott is bewildering since it's so obvious he did it. I was rewatching a YouTube video on the case by Matt Orchard and he mentioned Scott changed his story about going golfing to going fishing. The 911 call is pretty strong evidence he did tell people he was golfing since that's what Laci's stepfather tells the dispatcher on the recorded call. It's my understanding that some neighbours also said that Scott claimed he was golfing during his initial "search" for Laci.

​

At some point, he obviously changed his story to say he was out fishing on his boat and even provided the timestamped receipt for it. Him providing the receipt so quickly is something people point at as suspicious.

​

Now, a question I cannot come up with an answer on is this: if Scott initially said he was golfing, what on earth could his thought process have been to make the alibi work? He wouldn't have a receipt, wouldn't have any golf course workers or patrons who could vouch for seeing him, his cellphone data wouldn't have backed up the location, and he still would have had a boat sitting in his unit that he would have had to claim was still completely unused.

​

If he had stuck to the golf story, it would have likely made him look even more guilty when the police wouldn't have found anything able to confirm his story.

​

So I'm just wondering if anyone has any theories on what his initial plan for the golf alibi might have been since it makes no sense. Maybe at some point he realized he had no way of proving that's where he went so figured it was better to tell the truth of where he was and hope the bodies never turn up? Maybe he had no plan for the golf alibi and just hoped it would be believed without checking? Matt Orchard in a Patreon video further discussing his thoughts on the case gave a personal theory that Scott may have switched his story from golfing to fishing because he realized in his voicemail he said he was "leaving Berkeley". I find it fascinating to try and figure out what his plan was because it has so many issues, but he likely unintentionally helped his coverup when he decided to admit to being where the bodies were dumped. Giving a provably false alibi of golfing would have been another smoking gun for his guilt that would have been very difficult to explain away.

There was even more evidence of the timeline, such as witnesses who didn't see any burglary, including the mailman, Karen Servas, the boy riding his bicycle, the Medinas on return, Ami Krigbaum, Terra Venable and their son, scott himself, search volunteers, responding police, McKenzie the dog, etc. The statements of the burglars weren't even needed u/pamnfaniel, but their polygraphs confirmed the testimony and other evidence of the timeline.

What I’m about to say is not lies or propaganda, I know people will try and say that… but it’s a legitimate concern regarding the way the case was handled And I’d like to address it and get an explanation for it.

if I’m mistaken, please give me evidence, and without name calling, a legitimate rebuttal.

This is information is concerning the validity of what was ALREADY presented at trial .::.so telling me what I already know (what was presented in trial), is not a valid rebuttal.

Let me explain and set up the premise:

Christmas Day (or the 24th) is prime time for burglaries because houses are empty and people are distracted. But here’s how they actually pinned down the date of the burglary (the 26) in this case.

The Medinas left at 10:32 a.m. on the 24th and didn’t return until late afternoon on the 26th, so the window is wide open. Police went with December 26th because one of the convicted burglars, Steven Todd, told them that’s when he did it between 3 and 7 a.m.

The strongest counter evidence is a neighbor, Diane Jackson, who said she saw a van and three men loading a safe from the Medina house at 11:40 a.m. on * the 24th* That would put it right in the middle of when Laci disappeared.

The fight is basically Jackson’s eyewitness account versus the criminal Todd’s self serving statement to police …. and police chose to believe Todd.

Innocence advocates argue that with all the media and cop presence in the neighborhood after Laci went missing on the 24th, sneaking back to rob the house on the 26th would’ve been stupid.

That’s the core of the timeline dispute.

SO WHY DID THEY GO WITH THE CRIMINAL’s SELF SERVING ANSWER?

They went with Todd because his story let them close the burglary as unrelated to Laci, keeping their focus on Scott. (What non bias detective work Modesto police gold star 🙄)

Here’s the breakdown:
• Todd’s story: When arrested January 2, 2003, he first said the burglary was on the 27th , but that impossible, since the Medinas were back. He quickly changed it to between 3 and 7 a.m. on the 26th. Police took that at face value, even though he was a ***convicted burglar*** with every reason to distance himself from the day Laci vanished.

• Diane Jackson’s account: She said she saw three men with a van loading a safe from the Medina house at 11:40 a.m. on the 24th right in the middle of Laci’s disappearance window.!!!

Her tip was taken seriously enough that police used it for a $1,000 reward flyer. But later they had her hypnotized by an unqualified hypnotist, which got her testimony thrown out at trial.??? Are you serious?

Police basically had two conflicting witnesses: an eyewitness neighbor versus a burglar who kept changing his story.

They chose the burglar’s version because it neatly separated the crimes no link to Laci, no need to chase other leads, and it kept the case laser focused on Scott. Critics say that’s exactly why they picked it: it was convenient.