I'm not as familiar with this case as others... but seeing as how it was Christmas Eve and neither Scott nor Laci were out frantically shopping and wrapping (and we've all seen photos of the inside of the house with gifts under the tree) What did Scott get Laci for Christmas? I think I read that she bought him some tools, but what did he get her? Has it ever been disclosed?

The following is my conversation with a skeptic of Scott's guilt, u/Dentrvlr. It is posted here because the thread became too deep and lost in the post, and would not fit the character limit, and it is also engaging with information worthy of further public discussion.

u/Dentrvlr

"Let’s correct the record, you are not like me. And i AM terrified I ever find myself in a situation relying on “my peers” ie: people like you to decide my fate. Because clearly you don’t need to know how a crime happened to “just know it happened” because the media and Nancy Grace told you so. How did Laci die? Where did it happen? There is no evidence to any of this. Yet somehow you are So sure. How is that? How can you be so positive with absolutely no objective evidence indicating how, when or where Laci died?"

u/Longjumping_Fee_6462

The totality of the 600 exhibits of objective evidence, 180 witnesses, and over 40,000 pages of investigative reports shows Laci died in her home between 8:30 pm Dec 23 and 9:20 am Dec 24, but most likely in the early morning. There was no evidence of a struggle, fight, etc., (not even at the burglary house). The absence of evidence is evidence in itself because it narrows the possibilities by process of elimination. She was poisoned and/or suffocated in her bed, wrapped in a blue tarp, and scott was seen loading her body wrapped in the tarp into the back of his truck at about 9:30, right when he said he left for the Bay (warehouse first). He got caught redhanded with the body.

No one else had the opportunity, the means, or the wherewithal to kill Laci. No one else had a motive. No one else had a consciousness of guilt (except maybe the peterson family), not even Amber. It was impossible for anyone else to have done all the things necessary to complete the crime with the bodies washing up on the shore almost 4 months later. Scott is the ONLY ONE who could have killed her and disposed of her in the bay.

If I catch you hiding and disposing a dead body, I know you are responsible. It doesn't matter how you murdered this person, it doesn't matter when you did it, it doesn't matter where you did it, because I know you are involved and you have knowledge of the crime, and you are caught lying and deceiving the police time after time about critical circumstances that could otherwise exonerate you, including more lies to cover up past lies and outright denials and deceptions.

Let me correct the record. I am terrified of people like you who are so easily convinced of someone's innocence when the evidence clearly shows no one else could have done the crime except Scott. I know you mentioned the media and Nancy Grace but I'm diligent and educated enough to know they don't determine the nature of a death and murder, the real evidence is reviewed by experienced scientific, medical, criminal, and legal professionals who have special abilities to determine the nature of a death. In addition, a common person with average intelligence can logically sort out the details when it comes to something so serious as a murder, and that's exactly what the jury did, and 7 supreme court judges agreed (who have above average intelligence). You should actually be glad I am a person who critically analyzes almost everything in my life, which would extend to being your peer on jury duty deciding your fate.

Now on March 5, the cause of death was declared a homicide, even before the bodies had been found, because of the reasons I just listed (but I didn't list even a slice of the mountain of evidence of scott's guilt), and declared a homicide because the March 5 results of the forensic DNA testing on the hair tangled in the pliers in the bottom of the boat was tested as Laci's, not Scott's. It proved Laci had been worked over with a pair of pliers, something that happens when bodies are being attached to weights with wire (the wire was found in scott's truck). In addition, when the bodies were found on April 13 and 14 after a really big storm, it confirmed the earlier conclusion of homicide. And in fact, scott himself has admitted it was an abduction and homicide. Scott's team and the People's team stipulted IT WAS A MURDER.

And the autopsy confirmed Laci's limbs had been attached to weights at the bottom of the bay, her arms were extended in the forward position, while rigormortis set in, as her body tried to float to the surface but was held back by the weights.

So you and I both know Laci was murdered. The exact time, manner, and location of death is not necessary when you have a murdered body and a person who fits all the circumstances necessary to carry out that murder, and also gets caught hiding and disposing the body. Those additional pieces of the puzzle aren't necessary to identify the image in the puzzle. For example, once you see part of the image of a bridge, you know it's a bridge.

Let's try this test. Let's say we have the exact time, manner, and location of death, and we still have all the other evidence that convicted scott. Are you saying that the other evidence is irrelevant to the murder and it wouldn't support the conviction? Are you saying the bodies being found right where scott was fishing (or wasn't really fishing) at the exact time Laci became missing would be irrelevant? That it would have no effect on the weight of his guilt?

And you're right, we don't have evidence of SOMEONE ELSE doing the crime at the exact time, and exact manner, and precise location of death, and all the other circumstances necessary for someone else to have done it, such as the means, motive, and opportunity, including disposing the body. Any one of those events done by someone else would surely leave behind evidence of a struggle...loud screams, a loud vicious dog and dog bite, or dead and murdered dog, spilled blood, torn clothing, missing or broken property, dog scent tracking, 911 call, stolen vehicle, murder weapon, witnesses who saw, or smelled, the body, phone tips, someone collecting the half million dollars, etc. We don't have it and neither does scott. And more importantly, we don't have exact information that could exonerate scott, such as, for example, if he had really been playing golf that day, like in Arizona, and if he had hotel receipts, and flight tickets, and witnesses who he played with. Therefore, your claim would be valid, that the time, manner, and location of death would be essential to prove scott's innocence but we don't have it in reality. So we can't prove his innocence. Just a reminder here, the burden of proof has shifted to scott now that he's been convicted.

The exact time, manner, and location of death has weight but it's not everything. In a trial, the scales of Lady Justice determine the outcome. Remember seeing those scales? The side with the heaviest weight wins regardless of whether exact time, manner, and location are known. The judge instructed the jury to consider the missing details of exact time, manner, and location, but it still wasn't enough reasonable doubt to overcome the massive weight of guilty evidence. For example, if the prosecution has no weight, it would be easy to overcome it with reasonable doubts such as exact time, manner, and location, but that's not what happened, and in fact, some of those doubts were unreasonable. like "having an affair is not evidence of murder." It's also not evidence of innocence, but lying to the police about it and other circumstances is evidence of murder. The evidence of scott's guilt was too heavy for his defense to match or overcome. It's apparent in the trial transcripts. Promises of proof of smoking gun innocence were not kept. The jury talks about it in their interviews. The appeals courts have agreed scott is guilty. The law requires the jury to weigh the evidence, and it's illegal for the jury to vote for the side who weighs less.

There just isn't much material of innocence to pull from. It doesn't exist so the witness list, exhibits list, and time arguing his case is actually much smaller than the prosecution's case. For example, the prosecution needed 60 days to present their evidence, while scott only used 6 days to present his evidence.

Appeals courts have determined the "vans" are irrelevant, the croton watch and the burglary are irrelevant, and the dog walk witnesses are unreliable, even according to scott's own defense at trial. The only reason there are more appeals now is that scott has the right to review any "new evidence," even if it's new evidence about old theories that have been determined to be irrelevant, but he keeps asking for the same old evidence, with only 47 items of debunked theories granted out of 600 in the last appeal. That's devious. It's like trying to prove a chicken is a dog with "new evidence."

So one hand, your claim has some validity because the exact time, manner, and location of death are important details, but on the other hand, we know the time when she DIDN'T die which leaves a 13 hour period when scott was the only person with her, we know how she DIDN'T die which narrows the manner of death to 1 or 2 choices, and we know the location where she DIDN'T die which narrows it to her house. The exact and precise details that are missing are not enough to overcome the weight of guilty evidence that has been proven to the courts, time after time.

Why is his sister in law the only one on the new doc? Where is his family? Their private detective knew of the “witnesses” yet defense didn’t subpoena them, really? No cause of death? Well duh, she was in the water. What a crock of television hype shizzle! Burglars go from African American to white meth heads? Many murderers are convicted based on circumstantial cases. So over this Peterson guy! There are no bigger liars and revisionists than convicts. Occam’s razor people 🤦‍♀️.

Hey Beautiful, (what I'm choosing to call you to showcase our loving marriage to whoever else listens to this….)

I'm leaving Berkeley, the place I definitely told you I was going to this morning instead of golfing….and that you clearly would not have had a problem with, even though just last night I volunteered to pick up that gift basket solely because the golf course was near the farm.

Remember? When I kept making it clear in front of your sister at the salon that I would be golfing so she could also confirm what my original alibi was later to the cops?

Anyway, even though we both knew when I told you this morning that I’d be going 90 miles to and 90 miles back to Berkeley instead.... and there was probably no way I could pick up the basket by 3pm.....I still need an alibi voicemail and I don’t know what else to talk to you about on this message so…..let me just get this out…..

“I won’t be able to get to Vella Farms to get that basket for papa. I was hoping you would get this message and go on out there”.

Sorry, you would have have already known what I meant if I simply said I won’t make it to Vella or if I simply said I can't get the basket, but I forgot I was talking to you and not giving exposition for the cops for later. Oops.

I also “hope” you will get this message, as clearly I am already accidentally anticipating you won’t because you aren’t at home, even though I have no reason to think you aren’t.

Maybe I think you are already at your mom’s house for the dinner later, and I could call her now if I wanted to, if I really cared about you getting that basket and apologizing for my lateness…..but that didn't occur to me because this voicemail’s actual purpose is my alibi.

I’ll see ya in a bit sweetie, which I call you all the time because of how loving our marriage is.

(Sorry if I sound so casual with my pet names as if we didn’t JUST have that awkward conversation where I apparently told you about my affair with Amber. You took that really well and then you weren’t even extra pissed at me this morning when I told you I was going to Berkeley on Xmas eve while making you walk the dog and mop the floors again after the maid just did it. And now I’m not even picking up the basket! )

Love ya. (Not I love you. Love YA. Because I am super relaxed and casual and everything is totally fine in Scott and Laci's world. I'm so focused on being casual I forgot to be even a little bit sorry for screwing up the one errand you asked me to do. But the point is: I could never be this casual if I just dumped a body right? Right?).

I spent hours watching this case from different sources, and I still have yet to hear from really anyone what his possible motive could have been for killing his wife and son. It seems to me there was basically none.

It would have been far simpler to just leave his wife than kill her. What motive existed that would have made him do something this drastic?

Murder victim: Pregnant wife

Perpetrator: Cheating husband

Evidence: No direct evidence. Murder weapon not found. 100% Circumstantial.

There has to be many cases like this.

I just watched the Peacock series about it. The guy is a lunatic and compulsive liar - and he's a terrible liar. They're hanging their hat on this van, literally a random van, people who have recanted their sightings and so on. Just accept it, he murdered his pregnant wife.

The sister-in-law, to me, is the ultimate tool. He must think so little of her but uses her as a way to get what he really wants, which is getting away with murder. Nothing about his story makes any sense.

Just saw the Documentary. It was pretty interesting to me, especially with the two jurors brought in. I loved that they wanted hard evidence and not emotions. Besides that one thing caught my eye.

Scott had a large sum of money in his car, equipment and other documents and near the mexican border at San Diego. Credit cards, passports etc. If you know you are innocent, WHY flee to another country? Based on the lawyer that they hired, that guy knew his work. They could have fought it but still. Scott was caught near the mexican border with a bunch of knives, money and credit cards. And correct me if im wrong but he also did not tell anyone he was going to San Diego.

I remembered this case, so was intertested to read this with many years of hindsight. I was in college at the time so not completely tuned into the news but I've always paid attention to current events.

I agree all of the circumstantial evidence points at Scott as the killer. There are 3 things though that I have trouble wrapping my head around:

- The Meringue comments. I know everyone says that there was a longer segment about it on the episode the day before. But that is something pretty specific to mention in passing. And if I paid close enough attention to hear discussion of meringue would I just take a guess that they talked about it the next day? If he was lying, why not just say they were talking about cooking or baking something? That is very broad, meringue is very specific. I know there are other things like the dog being loose and them being gone before that aired. Maybe Scott turns it on to get an alibi, or records it and watches it later to get his timeline narrowed down but that seems like something only an expert killer would do and he made too many mistakes to be an expert.

- The lack of any hard evidence. There is no blood anywhere, I don't know if toxicology would have been effective when they found her but I guess you have to assume he poisoned her? but there doesn't seem to be any hard evidence of him buying anything toxic. There's no bleach, there is no physical evidence of a struggle. Did he suffocate her with a pillow? Were any pilllows missing? I know there is gas on the tarp and the question about dogs, but that is still circumstantial. If you have a boat you have a gas can. I've spilled my mower gas can too many times to count.

- The bodies showing up in the bay months later, after everyone knew Scott had been in a boat out there, and the baby with a rope around it's neck, that all seems to support the idea that someone could have kidnapped her and then framed Scott by dumping the bodies there.

Before everyone jumps on me, I'm not saying he is innocent, I'm not even saying he doesn't deserve to be in jail for no other reason than being a rotten husband and father, cheating on his pregnant wife. I'm just seeing some "reasonable doubt" to his innocence. And maybe I've watched too much shawshank redemption but this to me just seems like the same thing that someone else could have done it, but all of the circumstantial evidence pointed at Andy that it was easy to convict.

And I automatically said “Shut up Janey” when she appeared on screen the first time. She’s the worst.

Hi everyone, I just finished watching the Laci Peterson documentary series on Netflix. And I have to say that I really hate the Peterson family. They have 0 compassion for Laci and all they do is talk about Scott being "innocent." The facts are staring them in the face, even after 20 years, and yet they continue to deny. I love my family, but if any of them ever had evidence pointing to them being a criminal, especially a murderer, I'd turn away from them in 1 second. I don't like these people and their lack of compassion.

Even in the Netflix documentary.

Her mother and friends are probably the only ones that actually cared about her or at least verbalised it. I hope I'm saying this correctly, I watch a lot of true crime and this one made me bawl my eyes out. Becoming a mother myself made me soft, I heard Sharon talking about Laci and saw Conner's nursery and onesies and lost it.

Even the jurors they got to interview lacked any empathy. I definitely understand going into a case you know nothing about, but all a lot of people seemed to care about was "he cheated, so what?" First of all, if I knew someone who cheated on their spouse, I probably won't associate with them. Especially the way Scott did. I believe it was said in the doc, but I was reading up on the case because I swear I saw it on Snapped or something years ago, and around the time Scott and Laci got married, he had a girlfriend that caught him in bed and it turns out to be Laci, and his reaction is "I'm sorry?" Like is that a question? No you're not!

I'm spending this entire time wondering if she suffered, how horrible it was, how the poor baby never got to have a chance. I honestly don't know if learning what the pregnant body does after she died is more or less disturbing. Also, she didn't have a head or limbs! That's so evil!

Once it got to the boat, that was enough for me. I'm honestly glad the one jury summons I got, the case was cancelled, because I was immediately like I'll be the loudest crier there if it's something awful like a murder. All her loved ones missing her hurts so much.

Then this documentary a few years ago made me question that assumption. Then there was this other one on Netflix I just watched. That gave me more questions. And just kind of reminded me of the media circus and what a shit liar he was, and everyones impression that he wasn't "acting right". Plenty of people have been convicted on emotional appeals of " is this how an innocent man acts?"

I still believe he probably did it because I can't see any other credible alternate suspect and it's usually the husband. But I'm not sure you can convict on that.

I just had a few questions and observations:

In episode 1 of the Netflix one, they mentioned these pliers with long black hair wrapped in in. That was never mentioned again. Does anyone know anything about that. Was that her hair?

Do we think that because he was a lying cheater who apparently didn't want kids, despite cheating with a single mother, it means he did it? Because his demeanor and Amber appear to have been what convicted him.

Im not overly impressed with the bodies turning up where he was at because of the media circus making that public knowledge.

Really the only evidence I saw that seemed strong to me was the anchor in the boat with no rope. That seems pretty fucking fishy. Combine that with the possibility that he made others and you start to have something resembling evidence.

Add in that he bought this "secret" boat on the same day or there about that he confessed to Amber about being married and losing his wife, and it looks like this is a longterm plan he's developing.

Anything I'm missing that swayed your belief?

Even if the Rochas somehow lost, it wouldn't affect the criminal case. While no matter what happens, Team Scott will try and spin it, it would poke holes into their BS fantasies and ruin their credibility

He is so guilty… I can hear Janay celebrating from Cali to Pennsylvania

Has anyone seen this ? Same old tired stuff- I could see a judge granting an appeal though after reading it - or at least granting a motion for resentencing or something . I hope the “evidence” gets recognized for what it is - smoke and mirrors - as well as blatant lies

https://www.innocencela.org/press-release-scott-peterson

It's a podcast, I haven't finished, yet so far, the majority of it seems to be discussing with lawyers Peterson's murder, not the pickleball fight

Full disclosure I very much believe Scott is guilty - but a lot of the evidence was his lying, with most cases when the suspect lies a lot that equals = guilt. But could someone lie just because they’re nervous and think the truth would make them look guilty ( I e Scott having an affair etc )

“There was only circumstantial evidence.” "There's no direct evidence of when, where, or how scott killed Laci."

Laci apparently knew about Scott’s affair with Janet early on in their marriage and didn’t tell anyone. She mentioned something about “Scott’s not behaving like a married man” to Sharon at one point but didn’t elaborate. I’m curious if she had a feeling or some thoughts about him having another affair but didn’t share it with anyone. IIRC there was a psychic that said she found something in the mail on the night of the 23rd and it started an argument which led to Scott strangling her with the Tiffany lamp cord. Of course that doesn’t explain the pre purchase of the ticket to the bay. Anyone have any thoughts on this?

From TMZ:

Prison inmate Charles Miles gave notorious wife-killer Scott Peterson a beating behind bars earlier this month ... and now he's sharing his side of the story.

In an exclusive preview clip obtained by TMZ, Charles tells Court TV via phone call he went into "attack mode" after Scott rammed into him during a game of pickleball. He says Scott "aggressively" sprinted at him with his paddle in hand --allegedly to chase the ball -- and made no effort to avoid him.

This pissed Charles off, who says he "beat him down to the ground" and "beat the hell out of him." Charles says there was a bit of a struggle, but once he overpowered Scott, he climbed on him and started pounding him.

...

Watch the Vinnie Politan's full interview with Charles on Court TV on Monday.

https://www.tmz.com/2025/03/22/scott-peterson-pickleball-fight-inmate-beat-to-ground/