Scott Peterson’s case (Laci Peterson murder) may be reopened

Carolina Red

Moderator
Staff
Joined
Nov 7, 2015
Messages
36,296
Location
South Carolina
If you have Hulu, you should watch The Murder of Laci Peterson to get a rundown of the case and of why he might be getting his case reopened.

https://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2021/07/12/scott-peterson-trial-judge-murder/
(CBS13/AP) – A judge has ordered a hearing to see if convicted killer Scott Peterson deserves a new trial, over possible juror misconduct.

Peterson, 48, was sentenced to death in the 2002 murders of his pregnant wife, Laci, and the son she was carrying.

His attorneys claim a juror who eagerly sought to be involved in the trial, Richelle Nice, committed misconduct by not disclosing she had been a crime victim, defense attorneys said Friday in their bid for a new trial.

New details show Juror 7 failed to disclose her boyfriend beat her in 2001 while she was pregnant. It was previously revealed that she failed to disclose that while pregnant with another child she obtained a restraining order against the boyfriend’s ex-girlfriend, whom she feared would hurt her unborn child.

In court filings, prosecutors have brushed off accusations of misconduct. They included a declaration by Nice that indicated she either misunderstood or misinterpreted the questions about other legal proceedings she had been involved in.

The California supreme court already overturned Peterson’s death sentence in the murder of Laci and their unborn son over a judge’s mistake.
 

Scarlett Dracarys

( . Y . )
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Messages
32,769
Location
New York
This piece of shit keeps getting lucky. I sometimes question the character of the ones defending him. This reminds me of Chris Watts. Cowards.
 

Tarrou

Full Member
Joined
May 13, 2013
Messages
25,539
Location
Sydney
Yes - he did it, everyone knows he did it, it''s not a miscarriage of justice case.
why are you so certain Penna?

he is likely guilty but I don't think the defence proved it conclusively at all
 

Penna

Kind Moderator (with a bit of a mean streak)
Staff
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
49,661
Location
Ubi caritas et amor, Deus ibi est.
why are you so certain Penna?

he is likely guilty but I don't think the defence proved it conclusively at all
There seems to be so much evidence - his demeanour after the fact, changing his appearance, having his car stuffed with money and things he'd need to escape over the border.

This new development seems to be a suggestion that one juror should possibly have been dismissed, which isn't the same as saying there's new evidence that proves his innocence.
 

Carolina Red

Moderator
Staff
Joined
Nov 7, 2015
Messages
36,296
Location
South Carolina
There seems to be so much evidence - his demeanour after the fact, changing his appearance, having his car stuffed with money and things he'd need to escape over the border.

This new development seems to be a suggestion that one juror should possibly have been dismissed, which isn't the same as saying there's new evidence that proves his innocence.
Changing appearance: he was being hounded by the media

Money: he was living in his car

Direction of travel: he was going south to Torrey Pines to play golf with his family

All this is covered in the documentary series. Including the new evidence.
 

Tarrou

Full Member
Joined
May 13, 2013
Messages
25,539
Location
Sydney
There seems to be so much evidence - his demeanour after the fact, changing his appearance, having his car stuffed with money and things he'd need to escape over the border.

This new development seems to be a suggestion that one juror should possibly have been dismissed, which isn't the same as saying there's new evidence that proves his innocence.
There was zero physical evidence. They couldn't say where he killed her or how he killed her. They searched his house a million times and found nothing.

To me it looks like a case of someone 'probably' guilty, but they couldn't prove it. So instead went down the route of getting him tried in the court of public opinion.

They botched the case and particularly the timeline, but the jury hated him so much they convicted him anyway. There were like a dozen people to have claimed they saw her walking her dog after the time the prosecution claimed he killed her.

It should go to retrial in my opinion. The documentary is super-biased obviously so I don't put too much weight in it. But he still deserves a fair trial.
 

Superden

Full Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2013
Messages
2,081
There seems to be so much evidence - his demeanour after the fact, changing his appearance, having his car stuffed with money and things he'd need to escape over the border.

This new development seems to be a suggestion that one juror should possibly have been dismissed, which isn't the same as saying there's new evidence that proves his innocence.
i know nothing of the case other than what ive read in this thread, but none of that is evidence of him carrying out a double murder.
 

Carolina Red

Moderator
Staff
Joined
Nov 7, 2015
Messages
36,296
Location
South Carolina
There was zero physical evidence. They couldn't say where he killed her or how he killed her. They searched his house a million times and found nothing.

To me it looks like a case of someone 'probably' guilty, but they couldn't prove it. So instead went down the route of getting him tried in the court of public opinion.

They botched the case and particularly the timeline, but the jury hated him so much they convicted him anyway. There were like a dozen people to have claimed they saw her walking her dog after the time the prosecution claimed he killed her.

It should go to retrial in my opinion. The documentary is super-biased obviously so I don't put too much weight in it. But he still deserves a fair trial.
All of this. Is he a massive asshole? Yes. Did they prove he killed Laci? No.
 

Dr. Dwayne

Self proclaimed tagline king.
Joined
May 9, 2006
Messages
97,255
Location
Nearer my Cas, to thee
All of this. Is he a massive asshole? Yes. Did they prove he killed Laci? No.
As a case it certainly pushes the limits of convictions based on circumstantial evidence.

He certainly had motive.

He definitely had opportunity.

He was in the immediate vicinity of where the bodies were found on the day they went missing.

I'm iffy about the pliers evidence myself but the three points above likely went a long way to convicting him.
 

Carolina Red

Moderator
Staff
Joined
Nov 7, 2015
Messages
36,296
Location
South Carolina
As a case it certainly pushes the limits of convictions based on circumstantial evidence.

He certainly had motive.

He definitely had opportunity.

He was in the immediate vicinity of where the bodies were found on the day they went missing.

I'm iffy about the pliers evidence myself but the three points above likely went a long way to convicting him.
Which makes no sense when the argument was he went there to create an alibi AND to dump the body. Not to mention people saw him at the boat landing and saw nothing else in the boat with him and folks saw Laci alive walking the dog when she was supposed to be dead in SF Bay.
 

Dr. Dwayne

Self proclaimed tagline king.
Joined
May 9, 2006
Messages
97,255
Location
Nearer my Cas, to thee
Which makes no sense when the argument was he went there to create an alibi AND to dump the body. Not to mention people saw him at the boat landing and saw nothing else in the boat with him and folks saw Laci alive walking the dog when she was supposed to be dead in SF Bay.
The golf game was the alibi, wasn't it? That inconsistency didn't help him.
 

Carolina Red

Moderator
Staff
Joined
Nov 7, 2015
Messages
36,296
Location
South Carolina
Not that time. He apparently told Laci's sister, among other people, that he was going to be golfing on Christmas Eve.
And then said it was too cold where they were and went fishing, and told people he was going fishing instead, in SF Bay instead (where it was about 10*F warmer). This is all covered in the documentary miniseries.
 

Dr. Dwayne

Self proclaimed tagline king.
Joined
May 9, 2006
Messages
97,255
Location
Nearer my Cas, to thee
And then said it was too cold where they were and went fishing, and told people he was going fishing instead, in SF Bay instead (where it was about 10*F warmer). This is all covered in the documentary miniseries.
I see. Haven't watched that. Just read up on it to refresh my memory. Still, that probably didn't help his case.
 

Jippy

Sleeps with tramps, bangs jacuzzis, dirty shoes
Staff
Joined
Nov 19, 2009
Messages
57,228
Location
Jet fuel doesn't melt steel beams
Changing appearance: he was being hounded by the media

Money: he was living in his car

Direction of travel: he was going south to Torrey Pines to play golf with his family

All this is covered in the documentary series. Including the new evidence.
The wife and I watched three episodes last night and will watch the other three tonight- good recommendation, cheers.

There are a lot of odd things about the case and the documentary glossed over him washing his clothes when he got back from the boating on the Christmas Eve, which was odd, for example. The documentary is clearly in Scott's camp, but it does seem mystifying that you can get a murder conviction, with an actual death penalty no less, on circumstantial evidence, even if some of it, like his behaviour, does seem dodgy. Will watch the trial part tonight, but no idea how in the US you're allowed to have people like Nancy Grace yelling their guilty without prejudicing the trial. Pretty sure that would never be allowed in the UK.
 

Carolina Red

Moderator
Staff
Joined
Nov 7, 2015
Messages
36,296
Location
South Carolina
Nancy Grace
I hate that woman. And she never apologizes when she gets it wrong. Go look up why her career as a prosecutor ended (you won’t be surprised).

I’m glad you’re enjoying the show. Let me know what you think after the other 3 episodes!
 

carpy

Puff the magic dragon
Joined
Jan 6, 2007
Messages
4,532
And then said it was too cold where they were and went fishing, and told people he was going fishing instead, in SF Bay instead (where it was about 10*F warmer). This is all covered in the documentary miniseries.
Started watching this documentary miniseries and couldn't help but notice how one sided it seemed and full of his family so I did some research of my own and now I can't take the documentary seriously enough to watch any more.

How much of a "morning decision" to go fishing could it have been when he bought a 2 day fishing license for use on the 23rd and 24th of December on the 20th December? 3 people also testified that when he got home that day he told them he'd been golfing all day but he changed his story by the time the police arrived.
 

Scarlett Dracarys

( . Y . )
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Messages
32,769
Location
New York
Started watching this documentary miniseries and couldn't help but notice how one sided it seemed and full of his family so I did some research of my own and now I can't take the documentary seriously enough to watch any more.

How much of a "morning decision" to go fishing could it have been when he bought a 2 day fishing license for use on the 23rd and 24th of December on the 20th December? 3 people also testified that when he got home that day he told them he'd been golfing all day but he changed his story by the time the police arrived.
If he had nothing to hide he wouldn't have lied. He's the only one with a real motive. It's the lies that raised suspicion and how cold he was during the interviews.
 

Carolina Red

Moderator
Staff
Joined
Nov 7, 2015
Messages
36,296
Location
South Carolina
Started watching this documentary miniseries and couldn't help but notice how one sided it seemed and full of his family so I did some research of my own and now I can't take the documentary seriously enough to watch any more.

How much of a "morning decision" to go fishing could it have been when he bought a 2 day fishing license for use on the 23rd and 24th of December on the 20th December? 3 people also testified that when he got home that day he told them he'd been golfing all day but he changed his story by the time the police arrived.
If he had nothing to hide he wouldn't have lied. He's the only one with a real motive. It's the lies that raised suspicion and how cold he was during the interviews.
He spoke about fishing that morning to a neighbor and his father in law, if I’m not mistaken.