PLEASE DO NOT allow the following to turn into a war. I am simply interested in hearing what other people think and not about who can conjure up the best insults.



I have noticed that there are a lot of people on PTO who believe Scott Peterson is innocent. I would like to know, calmly, why the people who feel Scott is innocent, feel that way. It is probably obvious that I think Scott is guilty, but I am not above expanding my horizons and giving him the benefit of the doubt. So, I would appreciate a few sentences from those who believe Scott is innocent as to why they think he is and why.



Once again, I do not want this to become a heated topic, I am simply interested in hearing why people feel the way they do. I wish this thread to remain a polite and respectful one.



Thank you!

Katie,

Thanks for posting...I too am intrested to hear from people who believe he is innocent...I really didnt follow to closely on the case but did watch a few things here and there and I just think he was too much of a lier not to have done something...Thats just my opinion...I think he is in serious need of a psychologist...I dont think all murders are bad people just sick people...He must have had some serious issues..didnt he even tell his "lover" that he was in france once during a new years? i mean could he have come up with a BIGGER lie?

I really don't think he is innocent, and I hope he finds the help he needs while in prison. Because he has some serious issues. But I am interested in to hear why some may feel he is innocent, without being judgemental.

i do not know for sure if i feel he is guilty or innocent, but i do believe he was wrongly convicted. i just do not believe there was enough eveidence to convict him of murder. ESPECIALLY THE DEATH PENALTY. why do you think he is guilty?

I agree with Ashtynn, there was not enough evidence to convict him let alone the death penalty. I think he is guilty of having a mistress and not being an honest person, but that doesn't make him a killer

I believe that he is guilty, but I do not believe that he should be executed and I do not believe that there was a substancial amount of evidence to warrant a sentence of death. JMO

I didn't follow the case to closely but from what I did follow, I dont think they had enough evidence to sentence him too death...
Not to mention there is no way he could get a fair trail... That red haired jurror that just came out the other day calling him names and what not is proof that he never had a fair trail. That is what I am angry about...
Can you say they proved with out a doubt he commited those crimes? Just because he's a lier doesn't mean he is a killer. There are a lot of guys who lie, cheat, and do all kinds of horrible things to there wifes but they don't kill them! Just my opinion here!

Not here to judge I am here to give support to loved ones that need it in their time of sorrow and feeling lost in all of this.
I personally would be reluctant to seek support if my son guilt or not guilty was plastered all over this site. just something to think about

I don't wanna get caught up in the whole Guilty/Innocent thing, but I have to agree that he did not get a fair trial. They even had a movie made before his trial was over! There was too much publicity and I am sure the jurors already had their opinion of him, no matter what the facts were. Now, do you guys think Micheal Jackson will have a fair trial? I can say that his own bizarre behavior ain't helping!

Not here to judge I am here to give support to loved ones that need it in their time of sorrow and feeling lost in all of this.

I personally would be reluctant to seek support if my son guilt or not guilty was plastered all over this site. just something to think about



Yeah, I totally thought about that...that is why I am trying to be open-minded, and I think his family will appreciate my openness (I know my family would). I think he is guilty but I posed this question so that I could become more understanding and less judgmental.





To member(s) of the Peterson clan: if you are reading this I am in search of the truth, that is why I asked why other people for their thoughts. I wondered if perhaps there was something I missed or something the media grossly distorted (like the media often does) If you are offended please forgive me!



Thanks for bringing that misunderstanding to my attention az-tears!

I do agree that the media definitely did not help Scott obtain a fair trial. I believe because of them no place would have allowed him one (Ex. a change of venue would have been useless).

I don't know, I think it depends on the jury quite honestly. Look at O.J. Simpson, the media plastered him but he was found not guilty. I do agree, I think it's unfair he was given the death sentence, whether he is guilty or not. You need to think of it in two ways:

ALL of us know the pain involved when a loved one is in prison and the pain they endure. SO, if he is guilty, he will be in prison, alone, and have time to think about what he did.

If he is not guilty, the time will give him the opportunity to get an appeal and perhaps prove his innocence.

However, I have heard that you're more likely to die in prison before executed in California so let's just hope for the best for both families and pray that god sorts this all out in the end.

I followed the case somewhat and I sometimes dont know what to feel or say. All I know for sure is nobody knows what really happened . The only two that do is Laci and Scott. YOu see I learned a long time ago that what we all percieve to be true may not be true at all.

Everyone can believe you are in marital bliss and this great couple but no one knows what happens behind closed doors. Know what I mean.

Scott will probably die keeping his mouth shut. I think the media did a lot to make us all "think of him as a sociopath". Some people re act to different things. Hence how I may take a death may not be the same way you may deal with it.

What I find to be very sick is that Laci's head and arms were never found.. when they buried her all there was to bury was a torso. All of the families involved are hurting and need closure.

I for one would love to hear his story.....what does he have to lose?

I also know he got a lot of attention.. was it because he has money.. lived in a affluent community. Because the poor people get screwed all the time. Like they say money talks ...bull----- walks.

It is not up to me to judge Scott....he will have to come to terms with what happened.

I know the spokes person for San quentin said he has been getting alot of mail.. too much mail.

he will have plenty of time to read all his letters ... I do pray for him..

The media made this case a nightmare. There was way too much coverage. IMO if I had been on the jury I wouldn't have been calling the defendant names. Would have done my duty and then moved on. I've had my doubts about the case. All fingers point to Scott, but we never saw or heard of any physical evidence that would prove he did it. He was dumb in the choices he made of having an affair, but can he really be that smart to not leave any evidence behind. He may have seen Laci's disappearance as a way out of his marriage. I dunno I'm just speculating. I'm curious also on people's thoughts about it but don't want to see it become a war.

I for one would love to hear his story.....what does he have to lose?


his appeals for a start

What do you mean by his appeals...do you know how many years it would take before an appellate judge woudl hear his story.

Yes he had an affair..

If I an ask him a question why wait until laci was 8 months pregant. then again we may never know what really happened.

Thanks!

I really do not know if he is guilty, but I do find his conviction surprising. There simply was not enough evidence to convict him. so he cheated on his wife, so he was somewhat indifferent to her dissapearacnec, so he went fishing in the bay wher she and the baby were found, that is all circumstantial and not clsoe to "beyond a reasoanble doubt". that is what bothers me, even if the jurors felt in their hearts that he did it, I beleive that the prosecution did not prove their case and under this judicial system, if that is the case, he should have been aquitted.

Too much coverage.

PLEASE DO NOT allow the following to turn into a war. I am simply interested in hearing what other people think and not about who can conjure up the best insults.



I have noticed that there are a lot of people on PTO who believe Scott Peterson is innocent. I would like to know, calmly, why the people who feel Scott is innocent, feel that way. It is probably obvious that I think Scott is guilty, but I am not above expanding my horizons and giving him the benefit of the doubt. So, I would appreciate a few sentences from those who believe Scott is innocent as to why they think he is and why.



Once again, I do not want this to become a heated topic, I am simply interested in hearing why people feel the way they do. I wish this thread to remain a polite and respectful one.



Thank you!

YOU ARE A BRAVE ONE I WILL NEVER SEND A MAN TO DEATH ROW ON THAT KIND OF EVIDENCE AND NO IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE MAN BEING CUTE, BUT THE MAN SHOULD HAVE KEPT HIS MOUTH CLOSED HE WAS CONVICTED IN THE MEDIA AN HE RAN AND CHANGED HIS APPERANCE IF HE HAD OF STAYED AND FOUGHT I WOULLD HAVE NEVER CONVICTED HIM. AND TO HIS LAWYER DID THE BEST HE COULD.... SCOTT YOU SHOULD,NT HAVE RAN.

I don't know if he did it or not but I followed the case very closely and there is no way he got a fair trial.
The media turned him into the most hated man in America and the treatment of the Peterson FAMILY has been like nothing I've ever seen. I hope he gets a new trial, God knows there are enough appelate issues to last a lifetime!

I agree that there was not enough evidence to convict him BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. For me personally there was reasonable doubt written all over the state's case. I think he was convicted because people didn't like his demeanor and the fact that he was a lying/cheating man. Well if we sentence people to death based on that then we as women would be up a creek without a paddle.....

(Ashtynn here ya go! :D )

The fact that he tried to run and that he dyed his hair definitely did not help his case. I find it strange that Lacy and Connor's bodies were found in the same location as the same place he went fishing (though I recognize this could be purely coincidental, but it seems like a longshot). I also find the type of DNA they found on his boat strange. Those reasons are why I think he is guilty, not to mention the cult theory doesn't seem plausible. Oh, and the fact that his sister has written a book conceding his guilt really doesn't help him or his public image either. Since the Peterson family was so close, I don’t understand why his sister would write about her belief in her brother’s guilt if he really wasn’t guilty.

Did anyone hear that when Scott was in college he was investigated for another murder that was never solved? I find it a little strange that one person was investigated for two separate murders. While it is quite possible that Scott Peterson was in the wrong place at the wrong time twice, it is also quite possible that he killed Lacy and Connor. Remember they interviewed Gary Ridgeway (the Green River Killer) years ago, and then eliminated him as a suspect. Anything is possible....

As a side note: when the story first broke and Scott was accused of the murders, I found it strange that a husband would leave his 8 months pregnant wife home alone two days before Christmas. Of course that has nothing to do with the court proceedings that was just my first impression.

The only DNA found on his boat was the DNA contained in 1 strand of hair. I'm not sure he was trying to run when he was arrested since he had family in San Diego and had been staying there on and off the entire time.

I have read the 33 reasons that AB thinks her half brother is guilty and none of them have anything to do with murder IMO

SP was never investigated for the murder of the girl in college he simply attended the same college as she did and the media has grabbed that and ran with it. The boyfriend is and has been the main suspect in that case since the beginning.

I have my own opinions about the sisters book and the reasons she wrote it but I'll keep them to myself for now.

Good thread!

I think he is guilty of A LOT of things, but I don't believe murder is one of them. The state never showed any cold hard facts. I have read all of the books and everything was circumstantial. I think the media did him in, they had him guilty from day 1. I just don't think he got a fair trial and to be given the death penalty on all circumstantial evidence is just crazy...JMO

Fallen Star--good thoughts! I haven't read the book yet I will admit, thanks for the points!

justfriends--the media definitely screwed him over and pegged him as guilty from day one, I totally agree! I don't think he got a fair trial either, it is really sad. Much of the evidence was circumstancial and I don't think anyone should receive the dp.

We the people tryed and fryed him before he ever made it to court. An SOB does not a killer make. I for one don't know if he did it or not. What bothers me is that the jury found him guilty on so little evidence. And the death penelty? well like I said We all did it to him in a matter of speaking next time folks CHANGE THE CHANNEL!! (and yes I'm as guilty as the next guy cause I watched too :o )

I Cried When He Got Sentenced His Case And R Blake Case Has Similarities But Blake Was Found Innocent, He Was With The Woman And Said He Wanted Her Dead, He Should Not Have Ran And Changed His Hair Color That Made Him Look Guilty, And He Should Have Not Been On Tv At All, To Jackie Peterson You Might As Well Share Your Pain With The Rest Us Because We Don,t Judge We All Got Our Own Private Hell We Are Going Threw And We Are Not Judging Your Son. My Heart Goes Out To You.

I do not know for sure if he did it but I think that he made him self look guilty when he changed his hair color and ran. (or that is what it looked like) Also about the going fishing at that time her having a baby soon and so close to Christmas and him not acting like it was a big deal that she was missing. You know another thing did he not sell her car and other things that were hers with in weeks of her missing?? I am not sure but I thought that is what they said on the news. I watched some on the news but I did not follow close to the case. I hope that if he is innocent that they can prove it.
My thoughts go to both familys becuase I am sure that this is hard for all of them.

I've read every book that has come out about Scott and I followed the case, everything in every book revolves around him constantly returning to the Berkley Marina in different vehicles and recorded calls. They based a lot of his case on reactions he had to voice mails whether he listened to them ect. The cops felt they had proven he committed the crime when the search dogs tracked Laci's scent from her house to Scott's warehouse then to the highway he said he drove that morning to go fishing. I personally don't believe he should have gotten the death penalty I think once proven guilty he should have been sentenced to life. That's just my opinion.

I do think that if it was me personally facing those kinds of charges even if I wasn't an "emotional" person I would have had to cry when they showed the autopsy photos and the condition my wife and child were in once they were found.

One thing that made me think about his possible guilt came during his 1st TV interview. I had just gone to a convention for my work about the former #1 FBI Polygraph man was lecturing @ and he told us about polygraph's and how to read peoples body language & key words those who know something/or did it themselves & the #1 thing is them using the past tense when it comes to loving that person. Scott said "I loved Laci" NOT "I LOVE LACI" she had only been missing a few days & thier was no clues to her being dead. To me that was the 1st time I even thought about him having something to do with it. I saw him as the ever lovng husband in total shock, and understandibly. But on top of that there were the facts that she was still considered MISSING when he sold her car, put thier house up 4 sale & took off to his parent & then arrested with all that $$$ his brother ID and a new look. Thats just My Opinion. But I too am openminded and I feel that either he has the worst luck on the planet with all these couincedences (dont know if I spelled that right hehe) or he's guilty. As for the media they were thier from the start to HELP FIND LACI...thats the only reason he go so much attention come trial time.

My opinion on Scott's innocence or guilt--if he did commit the murders he is the biggest donkey ever conceived by a woman----yes I did tell him this-----I can't honestly believe that someone would actually be dumb enough to dump bodies in the exact same place that he was going to alibi himself, which is less than two miles from a relatives house. As for him not knowing what he was fishing for, etc. that is understandable he is upset, confused, scared...."Mom, Laci is missing" everytime I don't know where the cat is, or where my purse is--- it is "missing". I know for a fact that all the info. in the press is not correct as I have asked him specific things that were in direct dispute with the prior night's "talking head" story.

Jedidiah~

Have you written him? What has he said the press incorrectly printed? Can you share?

Thanks!!! :D

I just don't think in terms of "guilty" or "innocent". Only in terms of convicted or acquitted. I didn't follow the trial at all and especially didn't follow the story prior to his arrest. Of course, how can you miss it when you're bombarded with it every time the tv is on?

One thing obvious to me, though, was that he was convicted before the trial began. When there are demonstrations outside the courtroom during the trial to "hang the b******" that is an indictment of our criminal justice system.

I don't believe in capital punishment, so I don't believe he ought to be executed. I don't know what the jury saw, heard, or discussed in the jury room, so I don't know if he's guilty--he's convicted.

I have wanted to stay out of this, but I want more to challenge those who think Scott changing his appearence made him look guilty. Did you stop to think he wanted to escape the media nightmare that had become his daily exsistence? Maybe he was ready to grieve and wanted to do so privately. Maybe he did not want pictures taken of him by anyone and everyone. Yes, he was recognizable, but changing his looks may have been to throw off the media a little.

Just think about actions as actions and not guilt or innocence.

Kateeh
Items in direct dispute, comments attributed to a "cellmate", the medias description of how he spends his time out of his cell, and description of his environment. Yes, Kateeh I write to Scott and his parents.

I followed the Peterson trial I think Scott Peterson is guilty of murdering his wife and unborn child. I thought the police should investigate him when I saw him on america's most wanted when he did an interview with John Walsh he just acted like he didn't care, but that doesn't make anyone guilty of murder. On top of that he is a liar and a cheater but that doesn't make anyone guilty either. There wasn't enough of evidence to convict him and I was surprise when he was found guilty, because I thought that he wouldn't get convicted cause everyone who followed the trial can see there wasn't enough evidence to convict him. I do think he is guilty but I feel he should have not been convict cause there wasn't enough of evidence, to me the media convict him guilty Scott Peterson was guilty before he even went to trial Scott Peterson can never have a fair trial because the media is involved and his face is all over the TV, all over the world. But even if he did get off I truly believe in karma what goes around, comes around, What you do in the dark, will always come to light.
Karma

Kateeh
Items in direct dispute, comments attributed to a "cellmate", the medias description of how he spends his time out of his cell, and description of his environment. Yes, Kateeh I write to Scott and his parents.Thanks for sharing Jedidiah! I am so glad my question didn't come across the wrong way! :D

I have wanted to stay out of this, but I want more to challenge those who think Scott changing his appearence made him look guilty. Did you stop to think he wanted to escape the media nightmare that had become his daily exsistence? Maybe he was ready to grieve and wanted to do so privately. Maybe he did not want pictures taken of him by anyone and everyone. Yes, he was recognizable, but changing his looks may have been to throw off the media a little.
I can understand what U are saying & I agree Im sure anyone going through such an awful thing (the loss of a loved one) wouldn't want the media all over them. It just my opinion that in the beginning he said Fine focus on me any way U want as long as Laci's name is geting out there...and the things he did while she was still "missing" to me just didn't seem right for a griving person. I personally would have done all I could to find my loved one, and if it was out of my hands I would, if the media was all over me, stay "hidden". But at the same time be up to do anything they wanted me to do to help. But thats just My Opinion. :-)

I have wanted to stay out of this, but I want more to challenge those who think Scott changing his appearence made him look guilty. Did you stop to think he wanted to escape the media nightmare that had become his daily exsistence? Maybe he was ready to grieve and wanted to do so privately. Maybe he did not want pictures taken of him by anyone and everyone. Yes, he was recognizable, but changing his looks may have been to throw off the media a little.

Just think about actions as actions and not guilt or innocence.BUT IF YOU ARE A SUSPECT THAT,S THE LAST THING YOU WANT TO DO. THEY WILL HANG ON THAT ALONE, BUT I FEEL WHAT YOU ARE SAYING:thumbsup:

Just maybe he did not think he was a suspect. I know that sounds stupid, but think about it. If a person is truly innocent, even if they are a suspect, and are told they are a suspect, you have got to believe that the truth will prevail. If a person is the sociopath that the public believes, do they even think they are guilty? Could it be believed that such a perfect crime was committed that they could get away with it? Things to ponder...

I write to Scott in the hopes that for a brief moment in time I can make him smile, give him hope for the future, assure him it is not him against the world. Mistakes were made all around, Scott needs to open up his heart, Scott needs to let the healing start.....both famlies have to let the healing start.

Jedidiah, I am glad that you send words of support, my well wishes go out to Scott and all effected by this terrible crime. Next time you write, tell Scott that I wish him well. I am appauled by the media and the presumption of guilt an arrest carries in our society today. There is no more "innocent until proven guilty." I am wonder about "beyond a shadow of doubt." Juries are supposed to decide based on evidence and fact, not what they think and feel. I pray Scott's appeals are successful!

I believe whole heartly the Scott is Innocent, I do not believe in the press at all. I go by facts and information. In my poll is a link to justice4scott site that helps to show and explain what I can not possiably take the time to write, to much info. The poll is called Starting to think and it is in the husband, boyfriend ect...... Praying for all. God Bless you all

Just maybe he did not think he was a suspect. I know that sounds stupid, but think about it. If a person is truly innocent, even if they are a suspect, and are told they are a suspect, you have got to believe that the truth will prevail. If a person is the sociopath that the public believes, do they even think they are guilty? Could it be believed that such a perfect crime was committed that they could get away with it? Things to ponder...
Oh, he knew he was a suspect. Since LE tried to explain to him, "work with us to clear you" .. but no, he wouldn't work with them, but rather continued to do stupid things that kept himself in the eye of the law and the media. Most of all, his continuing to lie about just everything, even to family, kept suspicions on him. No one made him lie, no one made him act suspicious.

He has to be one of the lamest people I've ever seen.

He either is very very unlucky or guilty as sin.

I watched this case from day one, everyday of the prelim. and everyday of the trial. Spent good money to read the trial transcripts so I wouldn't have to listen to the media.

Sad, very very sad.

He's guilty in my opinion.

I'm glad I read this thread becuz in my mind it confirms he's guilty. There's nothing to say he's innocent. The only thing anyone can argue is that he didn't get a "fair trial". Well, maybe everyone was jumping all over anything and everything because there was so much to jump on. Just becuz there was lack of DNA evidence. Other's have been convicted on none, too. Can you say MEGA circumstantial? And obvious blunders of his?

I don't know if Scott did or didn't kill his wife and unborn child. The only ones who will ever know for sure are Scott, Lacey, and God. I just think that giving Scott the death sentence was not a fair and just thing to do. There is no scienfic evidence linking him to this murder. There are only a few odd details that you could twist and turn into a "maybe" and that is all the jury needed to convict Scott. Like I said, I don't know if he is innocent or if he is guilty but he shouldn't be put to death when there is any kind of chance that he is innocent. I feel sorry for his family and I feel sorry for Lacey's family because it looks like we will never really know the truth.

I don't know if Scott did or didn't kill his wife and unborn child. The only ones who will ever know for sure are Scott, Lacey, and God. I just think that giving Scott the death sentence was not a fair and just thing to do. There is no scienfic evidence linking him to this murder. There are only a few odd details that you could twist and turn into a "maybe" and that is all the jury needed to convict Scott. Like I said, I don't know if he is innocent or if he is guilty but he shouldn't be put to death when there is any kind of chance that he is innocent. I feel sorry for his family and I feel sorry for Lacey's family because it looks like we will never really know the truth.Did you follow the trial? Did you pay to read the daily trial court transcripts?

Are you basing your opinion on the media?

Circumstantial Evidence is strong. There is a mountain of Circumstantial Evidence in this case. It would be nice if every crime had witnesses, finger prints, forensics .. but that is not the case.

I think too many people are basing their opinion on the media. Because there was so much media in this case, people automatically think "oh, he didn't get a fair trial"

Trust me, he did. More fair than a lot of people on here .. loved ones got.

edit .. since the person who started this thread has asked for no debate, I will not post again. I would just like to see people say "I followed this trial closely" before they state he is innocent.

P. s. Her name is "Laci"

If you read my post again, you will see where I stated that I didn't know if he was guilty or innocent. I wasn't defending him because there is a possibility that he is guilty but I don't think he should be put to death because there is also a possibility that he is innocent. That was my point of this post!

I do not beleive there was enough evidence to convict the guy. Guilty or not you are supposed to be presumed innocent. Hell I would have avoided the media at all costs myself. Doesn't mean sociopath.

Hey there,

I have followed this case, not as close as some, but i read a lot as here in australia we didnt have as much media coverage as in the USA. I am not sure if he is innocnet or guilty, only him and lacy will every really know the truth. I do think that there was not enough evidence to convict him as i personally think it was all circumstancial. Just because he cheated on his wife ( and he had years before) doesnt make someone a killer. If they had had DNA evidence( and i mean linking him to her body and vice versa), well then that would be a whole diferent story.

Just a shame it happened at all.

I followed the case here in England after seeing it on the TV when I was in LA on holiday. As soon as TV show had finished I turned to my wife and said that he would be found guilty. Everywhere in the democratic world affords a defendant the right to be innocent untill proven guilty. I cannot remember the name of the TV show but it featured other up and coming court cases. This type of TV show is totally prejudicial to any future trial and over here in England would never be allowed to air untill after the trial has concluded. I have my own opinion of whether Scott Peterson is guilty or innocent and I'm sorry to say it was based on that TV show. If I can be influenced by that then so can a potential juror!!!

The USA has a serious problem with protecting the rights of the defendant before a trial and for more proof you only need look at the Michael Jackson trial. Again I have already formed my opinion on guilt based on the pre trial coverage!

This is the first time I read this thread since I am not really interested in big media cases. I wonder what attention this case would have gotten if they hadn't been white and attractive? Would anyone have paid attention if Laci was a poor, uneducated mother on welfare? I don't belive so. Murders happen everyday. and it sickens me to see it displayed that one life is more valuable than the next.
Regarding Scott's innocence or guilt, since I wasn't there, I don't know. If I have learned anything in my experiences with "law" and "justice" and "trials", it's that they are simply a performance and whoever puts on the best act wins. It is not truth, it is not instant replay, it is subjective persective. None of us ever know, including those on the jury. There is always that statistic, even if it's .00005%, that he didn't do it, that should prevent those of us who are suffering in this system to not judge other people. Instead of spending my time being fascinated by someone who died, I would rather work towards change in our society and so-called justice system that is so quick to discard human life.

Today his girlfriend, the one he cheated with, was on national TV in the Netherlands. She told about the book she wrote... I didn't know what the story was, but to me it looked like he is guilty... But, I also know the media can play with your mind... And no matter what, he should'nt have been sentenced to death, because this punishment is something I am against. If he did it, they can put him away for life, but not a death penalty...

Has anyone actually written and received a letter from Scott?





Legal experts believe that Scott must be patient and just patiently wait until the big appeal.



About the new girl friend Scott has... She should be patient and be actively raising money for the big appeal..



Tips on raising money... This is just a theory...



The girl should become friends with the parents of the convicted. The girl should ask the parents if she can stay in the son’s room until the big appeal day. She can claim that with all the rent money she saves she can help the convicted person pay for the big appeal. The convicted person’s parents are really nice people... They love to hear good stories that will help in the big appeal process.



According to the news no one to date has tried to take advantage of the convicted parents...

Geez, so much judgment here! No, I don't know whether or not Scott is guilty, and either does ANYONE else, as pointed out above, except, God, Scott and Lacey. whethre or not you read the transcripts, watched court TV or caught it now and then, I don't think ANYONE can say that there was anything more than circumstantial evidence to convict him. since this country was founded on the principle of "its better to let a guilty man go free than to convict an innocent one" I don't think Scott ought to have been convicted, let alone sentenced to death. My goodness, these jurors must think alot of themselves, THEY know who is telling the truth, THEY know EVEN though research has shown that there is no way for even experts to judge this (who is lying and who is not) God help me if I ever have to sit before a jury who judges me. Quite frankly and no disrespect intended, I don't know one educated, intelligent person that I have talked to who thinks he ought to have been convicted, they ALL are like me-- "maybe he did it, maybe not, but the evidence did not prove it." THAt ought to be the end of the discussion, at least under this legal system.
Even if you read the transcript

HI:

This is my first post....bear with me here!

I have followed Scott's case since the beginning. I became disgusted at the media's biased coverage, and decided to investigate and come up with answers on my own. Two plus years later, I have come to the inarguable conclusion that Scott was wrongfully convicted. I don't condone the adultery or lying to Amber over the phone, but it simply doesn't equate to murder. For the record, I have no romantic involvement with Scott, and don't desire it. He is a friend, and I am an advocate and friend to him...that is all. I have never written another inmate or been romantically involved with one (not that I think it is wrong, just hasn't happened. I think this forum is a great support system!)

The Modesto Police told a friend of Scott's within 2 hours of arriving at the Covena House that they "knew what had happened here", and immediately focused in on Scott, ignoring important tips and leads that could have led to Laci's safe return, including sightings of Laci on 12/24, after Scott had left their home to go fishing. Their rush to judgement was swift, and frightening.

In 2 searches of the house, warehouse, vehicles, and boat by the MPD and FBI, not one piece of conclusive physical evidence was ever found to tie Scott directly to Laci's murder. Yes, a piece of hair that MAY have been Laci's was found in a pair of pliers in the boat, but the pliers were rusty, and an expert testified that they had not been used/opened in awhile, yet the hair was wound around and inside of the pliers. In addition, when the "hair" evidence envelope was opened months later, ONE piece of hair had "magically" turned into 2! Go figure!

No crime scene, no motive, no physical evidence, no confession (even after hours of calls with Amber Frey!)...NOTHING!

I could go on and on, but won't bore you all. I have read the transcripts, been to the trial and Modesto to investigate myself, and know the Peterson's personally. The thought of them coming here for support and reading venom about their son almost brings me to tears. Truly, they are lovely people.

I do communicate with Scott, but would never betray his trust by divulging the details of our correspondence.

Whatever your opinion of Scott is, please try to remember that, while each of you have your own situations to deal with, you have never walked a mile in Scott or his family's shoes, nor have they walked a mile in yours. If any of you are ever at SQ visiting and have the pleasure of meeting any of them, you will know what I mean.

Thanks. Hope I haven't offended anyone, I am just very passionate about the case. I truly believe that Scott will be found not guilty and exonerated upon appeal.

missyT

P.S. If anyone has questions regarding Scott's case, feel free to post them here or PM, I will do my best to answer!

Hi missyT, and thanks for your post. :) I don't know whether Scott is innocent or guilty and it's not my place to make that call, but I don't think the jury had enough evidence to convict him. I agree with you that it's not appropriate for people to post negativity because regardless of personal feelings, this is a support site and we need to remember that his family and friends are just as welcome here as anyone else.

Hi missyT, and thanks for your post. :) I don't know whether Scott is innocent or guilty and it's not my place to make that call, but I don't think the jury had enough evidence to convict him. I agree with you that it's not appropriate for people to post negativity because regardless of personal feelings, this is a support site and we need to remember that his family and friends are just as welcome here as anyone else.Thanks so much for your response!

Missy T,
For a first time post, that is a mighty good one. I too feel that Mr. Peterson got an unfair trial. You raise some very valid issues in regaurds to the evidence or lack there of. I think that we should all take note of this case and realize that anyone of us could get sent to death row without a single eyewitness and no forensic or dna evidence supporting the charge. That frightens me beyod beliefe. I do think that the media has dictated the outcome of this case.

hey missyT:

i agree with everything you said 100%. thanks so much for the post...

I don't know if he is guilty or not but based on the media coverage it was obvious that they 'knew' he was guilty. Whatever happened to being presumed innocent? It's disgusting that any trial can be played out in the media before it has even commenced. It is totall wrong that any trial can be prejudiced in this way.

I don't know if he is guilty or not but based on the media coverage it was obvious that they 'knew' he was guilty. Whatever happened to being presumed innocent? It's disgusting that any trial can be played out in the media before it has even commenced. It is totally wrong that any trial can be prejudiced in this way.


I totally agree...

Guilty. Why? Lets see...his wife is only missing a short time, and he refers to her in the past tense: "I lovED her...", and "She WAS a wonderful person..." This wasn't something misquoted by the media--I saw the interview. He also put their house up for sale while she was still missing because he couldn't stand to be in there. WHAT?!? If she is missing, wouldn't you want to keep the same house, hoping for the day she returns? He told his (ex-)girlfriend that his wife was dead. Hmmm...and both she and his sister think he's guilty. That's pretty harsh.

i totally agree
why if your loved one is reported as a missing person why sell you house and all hte past tense quotes
i am sorry i feel he is guilty
and i have a open mind about this stuff
Now as far as OJ i still dont know if he is guilty
Any one remember the Susan Smith Story I didnt believe that she could of killed her children till the came right out and admitted it and then it wax still hard one to swallow

Guilty. Why? Lets see...his wife is only missing a short time, and he refers to her in the past tense: "I lovED her...", and "She WAS a wonderful person..." This wasn't something misquoted by the media--I saw the interview. He also put their house up for sale while she was still missing because he couldn't stand to be in there. WHAT?!? If she is missing, wouldn't you want to keep the same house, hoping for the day she returns? He told his (ex-)girlfriend that his wife was dead. Hmmm...and both she and his sister think he's guilty. That's pretty harsh.

Guilty. Why? Lets see...his wife is only missing a short time, and he refers to her in the past tense: "I lovED her...", and "She WAS a wonderful person..." This wasn't something misquoted by the media--I saw the interview. He also put their house up for sale while she was still missing because he couldn't stand to be in there. WHAT?!? If she is missing, wouldn't you want to keep the same house, hoping for the day she returns? He told his (ex-)girlfriend that his wife was dead. Hmmm...and both she and his sister think he's guilty. That's pretty harsh.Hi Honeymooner: I'd like to respond to a few of the issues you bring up:

1)You say that Scott referred to Laci in the past tense.
On a few occasions, you are right, he did. But, so did Laci's mother, father, her mother's boyfriend, her brother, half-sister and many of her friends, all accounts which are documented by the media as well. Everyone, Scott included, referred to Laci both in the past and present tense, common in a situation where they are in "limbo" and wondering if Laci would be found alive or not. This does not make Scott any more guilty of murder than any of the other people I just mentioned. By the way, I am not accusing Laci's family of anything, I'm simply making a point. The Modesto Police referred to Laci in the past tense as well.

2) Yes, Scott inquired about putting the house up for sale, but the house was never listed by a realtor for Scott, so this is patently false. Scott did not want to bring Laci home to a house that she might feel unsafe in, he stated this in a phone call to a real estate agent, who testified to this in court, at the trial.

3) Scott never used the word's "Laci is dead" when talking to Amber. In addition, Scott saw Amber on 4 occasions only...she was NOT his girlfriend, but someone he was taking advantage of sexually during the late stages of Laci's pregnancy (I don't excuse it, just calling it what it is). Scott told Amber that he had "lost" his wife. Big difference between "lost" and "dead". Later, in a conversation that Amber taped as an agent for the Modesto Police Department, she asked Scott to explain what he meant by the word "lost", and he stated that there are different levels of loss. This does not prove Scott, beyond a reasonable doubt, guilty of murder.

4) Scott's sister claims in her book that she was convinced of his guilt the day Laci and Conner were found on the shore of the SF Bay (4/19/03). However, 16 months later, she was still sending e-mails to Scott's friends and family thanking them for supporting Scott, and telling them that she believed Scott to be innocent. In my opinion, if Scott had been acquitted, Anne would have still written a book, probably in defense of him. Anne and her husband have numerous tax liens against them (it's public record, you can look it up). That fact, in and of itself, leads me to believe that her motive for writing a book was financial, and also leads me to believe that her book is not entirely factual. As far as Amber believing he is guilty, well....she's entitled to her opinion, although I think she is basing it more on media BS, the MPD, and her attorney "telling her so" more than anything else. I actually feel sorry for Amber, both for the way Scott treated her during their brief involvement, and for the way she was manipulated and used by the police, DA's office and Gloria Allred (her attorney) after Laci's disappearance.

Thanks for listening.

missyT

missyT, well written and great points. I am sorry about the legal system in the US, the media has too much power and control. I do not know if there was a fair and impartical jury out there to sit for SP's trial. Personally, I do not think that it is my place to decide someones guilt or innocence. I can always find reasonable doubt.

I wish SP well and hope that his appeals do justice. I don't believe that he got that at trial.

So, when he said he "lost" his wife, you think he meant that he misplaced her, like a set of car keys? What would be the "different levels of loss" he was referring to? I don't know how anyone could misinterpret "I lost my wife."

I'm not sure what you define as "girlfriend," but I've read the phone transcripts. This was more than a sexual relationship. And the fact that he only "met with her" 4 times means diddly-squat. There are women on this website who become engaged without even meeting their men first.

Funny, you've found the sister guilty of writing the book for financial gains, based purely on circumstantial evidence.

I am not sure, but I did watch alot of court TV coverage. I just feel very sorry for Scott as I am sure he could not have gotten a fair trial anywhere with all the media hype.

I really will probably never say guilty or inncocent again on any case. I believed for years the media hype that The Ramsey's killed Jon Benet. I now have watched a documentary that is curretly being aired with regularity and I am absolutley sure they are innocent yet their lives have been destroyed by that speculation.

Honeymooner,

Are signs for "Lost Dog" mean searching for dead dog? doubt it.

If a person goes missing and you are not wanting to really reveal detail as in a man who is trying to cheat, "lost" would be pretty appropriate. It also would be as if a man's wife ran away with another man. He may say seperated, divorced not my run away wife.

i think his innocent. there is way 2 much public relations on this case & he was probably jst a sitting duck 4 an over zealous community.

So, when he said he "lost" his wife, you think he meant that he misplaced her, like a set of car keys? What would be the "different levels of loss" he was referring to? I don't know how anyone could misinterpret "I lost my wife."

I'm not sure what you define as "girlfriend," but I've read the phone transcripts. This was more than a sexual relationship. And the fact that he only "met with her" 4 times means diddly-squat. There are women on this website who become engaged without even meeting their men first.

Funny, you've found the sister guilty of writing the book for financial gains, based purely on circumstantial evidence.Read Tekala's post above, she nailed it..."lost" does not mean "dead", her example is excellent! Couples "lose" each other on an emotional level all the time, especially when going through changes such as Scott and Laci were experiencing.

As far as our definitions of what a "girlfriend" is, I guess our definitions are different. I would not consider myself someone's girlfriend after 4 sexual encounters, and without even having the man's home phone number and address. I guess I have more self respect than that. Amber is naive, IMO. Scott never considered Amber a girlfriend, I know this first-hand. Laci and Scott were not sexually active in the latter stages of her pregnancy (per testimony from one of Laci's friends), and Scott was "getting some action" where he could. OF COURSE he "sweet-talked" Amber, most men who cheat do! Have you read the actual trial transcripts? Try that, and you will see what a bunch of BS this case was from the beginning! The media ruined any chance of a fair trial and impartial jury!

The tax liens against Anne and her husband are factual, NOT circumstancial, and public record, look them up! The IRS breathing down someone's neck is a very good financial incentive for a book deal. I have access to the e-mails that Anne sent regarding her belief in Scott's innocence 16 months after Laci and Conner were found...which is the day, in her book, she says she came to believe 100% in Scott's guilt. This is not circumstancial, it is fact.

I am helping build a website to advocate for Scott. It is still in the early stages and will continue to evolve, but check it out.

www.savescottslife.com (http://www.savescottslife.com)

Thanks,
missyt

Personally I feel Scott is Guilty. I don't believe they had the evidence to give DR . I think this case was so emotional for a lot of people and I think everyone wanted him nailed. For the crime that was commited was SICK! I think a lot of people forget that the lack of evidence over shadows the fact of the crime committed. What if someone did this to your daughter or mother or sister! I feel for his family because they have been ridiculed for their son and that is unfair! I feel very upset when I see people defending him that he is "innocent" because a lot of the case points directly at Scott. Granted there was NO smoking gun evidence but to proclaim his Innocense is a stretch. My question is what reason would someone say he is "innocent" I could understand that he didn't get a fair trial but that is so far fetched from being innocent! this is a woman's life and an unborns childs life that was taken. Regardless of the lack of evidence how could a married man have no concern for the where about of his 8 month pregnant wife, continue an affair and manage to live the way that he did. Point blank his story and the coincidences don't add up and I rest a lot easier knowing he is not on the streets. I try not to be too strong on this opinion because I do realize that it is a touchy subject and so I will just leave it at this.... A lot of us are dealing with "wrongful convictions" "lack of evidence" and so on and so forth But that should not cloud the fact that all of what he did proves his guilt. I am sure there was a lot that the media could not cover and therefore we didn't see what the jruy did. Sometimes we need to seperate our situations from what happend to Scott. He is a sick person for what he did, I don't believe in the death penalty, but his appeal will handle that I am assuming.

Friendly questions.....support for all PTO participants.....judging is different from personal opinions.....high profile and very emotional case.....not the first murder of a pregnant woman and won't be the last.....how might we feel in the shoes of anyone involved in the Peterson case....

God Bless and give peace to everyone touched by this case!

I think he's a psychopath. I don't believe in the death penalty however. It was more circumstantial evidence against him.

Please forgive me, I am reminded of Jack's famous line.

The fact is, the evidence did not prove Scott committed a crime.

What got the man convicted was a s$$t that has since gone on to make a lot of money telling HER side of the story. Whatever that is.

Basically, people don't understand what discovery is or how it works. Fact is, there was a lot of exculpatory evidence on Scott's part. BUT, if the detectives don't reveal it to the D.A.'s office, it doesn't have to be given to the defense.

Such was the case here.

Whether he is innocent or guilty, I have no idea. What I DO know is that he should have never been found guilty of being a liar and cheater. That is not a crime. Perhaps he should have been charged with adultery.

I think it's a shame that a jury could be as deluded and D.A.-handled as they were. I would at least like to think the members of this forum would have minds of their own, and further, had Scott been tried by members of this forum, I think the worst that would have happened would be a hung jury.

Legally, I think he is innocent. Having a mistress does not make you guilty of murder.

I think he's a psychopath. I don't believe in the death penalty however. It was more circumstantial evidence against him.Many people, over the course of Scott's case, have carelessly thrown around the terms "psychopath, and "sociopath", in an attempt to label Scott.

There has never been a psych eval done, by a PROFESSIONAL, that labels him either a psychopath or sociopath. IMO, you are using the term irresponsibly here.

missyT

Please forgive me, I am reminded of Jack's famous line.

The fact is, the evidence did not prove Scott committed a crime.

What got the man convicted was a s$$t that has since gone on to make a lot of money telling HER side of the story. Whatever that is.

Basically, people don't understand what discovery is or how it works. Fact is, there was a lot of exculpatory evidence on Scott's part. BUT, if the detectives don't reveal it to the D.A.'s office, it doesn't have to be given to the defense.

Such was the case here.

Whether he is innocent or guilty, I have no idea. What I DO know is that he should have never been found guilty of being a liar and cheater. That is not a crime. Perhaps he should have been charged with adultery.

I think it's a shame that a jury could be as deluded and D.A.-handled as they were. I would at least like to think the members of this forum would have minds of their own, and further, had Scott been tried by members of this forum, I think the worst that would have happened would be a hung jury.

Legally, I think he is innocent. Having a mistress does not make you guilty of murder.Very well said!

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but when those opinions are drawn on innuendo and false information from the media, it makes me crazy!

I can assure you, to anyone on this forum who has a loved one they feel was wrongfully convicted...I will never judge your situation without knowing the facts!

missyT

Thanks missyt for the kind words, but when I went to school, we were trained to "follow the money". An ordinary person becomes something you don't understand when you wave dollar bills in front of them. Has anyone had a death in the family and fought over assets? These people become ABNORMAL quite quickly.

Personally, I don't believe Amber was at first manipulated by money. Oh no, the cops saw to that when they threatened her with accessory after the fact. She was scared to death, and rightfully so, she just cashed in after the fact.

The half-sister? Her saga barely begs a mention, except some people make it so. She rates high on my list of gold-diggers in this case, perhaps #1. Read her book, and you will find that while it was probably written by a ghostwriter, THEY were not even good enough to hide the fact that the book could have gone either way, had he been aquitted. (And probably sold more books!). I'm sure it was being compiled while the trial was in progress.

Because it seems important to someone, I will state for the record that I followed the trial closely. Further, I did not pay for the transcripts, as I found them for free on the internet.

Whether or not this makes me more intelligent I will leave to the reader.

To sum up, I do not know if Scott is innocent or guilty. I don't have to.

Or system of government does not presume to decide if someone is innocent.

Only, not guilty.

Perhaps it is a shame that someone who is actually innocent can never clear his/her name by a verdict of "not guilty," it is the law, and for now we are stuck with it. O.J. and Mr. Blake were found not guilty, and now have the everyday shame of never again finding work to which they would otherwise be entitled. Deserved? Maybe.

But if they are innocent, the answer would be 'certainly not.'

I am a convicted felon. I have served the sentence for my wrongful conviction. In the People's Republic of Oklahoma, I cannot cut hair, because I am a convicted felon. I cannot be a vet, and care for an animal in pain, because I am a convicted felon. I cannot become an elected official of the City Council, because I am a convicted felon. Nor can I vote, which is taxation without representation. The list of jobs I cannot have is quite lengthy, most without reason, except that elected officials have become whores to the people that give them money to win elections.

A system that I cannot participate in.

Perhaps I would like to be a whore?

I'll just wait for my next girlfriend to be a suspect in her husband's death.

I digress, and apologize, gentle readers for what has been an emotional rollercoaster, regardless of where you sit.

I said it before, and say it again...get the back story. The discovery violations are too numerous to list. Scott's friends were bewildered by the fact that there were numerous sightings of his wife when he had an alibi, but these were only reported by newsmagazines when in a reinactment, a friend of Scott's confronted the detective in charge of the case. He told him then that since those facts didn't mesh with their interpretation of the case, they would not be investigated.

Follow the discovery.

If the detectives don't give it to the prosecution, the prosecution ain't got to give it to the defense.

It isn's quite fabricating evidence, as in the O.J. trial, but it is the OMISSION of evidence.

Quite disturbing.

Sorry for the thesis....

Rarely do I become involved in something so emotional, but I cannot sit by and watch missyt defend something of which she has first hand knowledge, against folks that only have the witch-hunting abilities of the FBI.

So well said, thank you!!!

Not Guilty!!!

I couldn't say for sure if he is innocent or guilty. My post on the media coverage was about an observation on how prejudicial it was. Whether it was intended or not any media coverage to the extent I witnessed whilst on a short holiday in the US would plant notions of guilt or innocence in anyones mind. My only comments on the case have been about the media coverage. It's wrong for the media to report on the case in the way they did. Based on what I saw I formed an opinion on Scott's innocence and if I can form an opinion then any potential juror could.

Although I don't follow US court cases, I would imagine that it is common practice for unscrupulous prosecuters to use the media to 'reach out' to potential jurors.

clemo, welcome to PTO! :yay: :wave:

I can't say "guilty" or "innocent" because I didn't follow the case. I CAN say that this is a SUPPORT forum, not a bashing one, and remember how YOU (loose term here.."you" can mean anyone) would feel if you were one of Scott's loved ones and you came on here and read all the bashing and "He's guilty" statements. Your loved one may very well be guilty too, but nobody comes on here bashing them.

Please keep this in mind. We are all here for the same reasons...support.

Nance

clemo, welcome to PTO! :yay: :wave:
Thanks!

You are welcome and welcomed! I agree the media is too powerful and out of control about pointing fingers.

WELL I DO BELIEVE SCOTT IS INNOCENT. AND WHAT MAKES IT VERY DIFFICULT IS THE MEDIA ALREADY HAD HIM ASSUMED GUILTY AND SO DID THE MODESTO POLICE DEPT. ALL BECAUSE HE HAD AN AFFAIR, NOW COME ON HE IS NOT THE ONLY MAN TO DO THAT ANYWHERE,HES HUMAN EVERYONE MAKES MISTAKES,...BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN HE KILLED LACI OR CONNER AT ALL. I WATCHED THE CASE FROM THE BEGINING AND IM FROM MODESTO BORN HERE ...HE DID NOT HAVE A FAIR TRIAL WHAT SO EVER . I BELIEVE IN HIS INNOCENCE..I FELL IT IN MY HEART HE DID NOT DO IT.....I SUPPORT SCOTT FULLY.......TY FOR UR TIME HERE,,,,MELISA FROM MODESTO CA

Innocent!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! All The Way Innocent!! Im Behind You Scott Always Will Be

I did follow the case of Mr. Peterson and if ou look at the evidence in totality you will understand why it is that the jury gave him the death penalty.


First, it wasn't him that reported his wife "missing to the police" it was Sharon Rocha who called the police. And when the police arrive to take a statement from him he didn't know what he was fishing for? Now come on folks who goes out fishing and doesn't know what kind of fish they are fishing for!

He was asked that night if he had marriage problems or a girlfriend. He said NO! Later on we discover that was a LIE!

There are over 300 hours of taped conversations with Amber Frey and Scott!

He lies about being at the candel light vigil for his wife and tells Amber he is in Paris!

He tries to sell the house!

He sold Laci's Land Rover.

He goes to the Berkeley Marina 5 times and rents cars 3 times to avoid investigators!

He changes his appearance and buys a Mercedes under his Mothers name and has 15k cash and his brothers license and is 30 minutes away from the Mexican border with camping equiptment, dress shoes, white shirts, jeans, dress pants, viagra, water purification system, and other stuff in the trunk when he is arrested. What does he say to the police when he is arrested?? "Did you find my wife and son?"

Investigators knew that he made 5 weights made from pitchers but could Scott could only account for 1! they never found the pitcher either!!

I believe Scott's statements that he made in the past also convicted him! Such as he "was hoping for infertility".

These all played a part in him getting the death penalty. There was to much of a coincidence that her body washed up exactly where he was "fishing" 4 month earlier.

Your question really has two meanings. Why is Scott factually not guilty, and why is Scott legally not guilty?
Factually not guilty? Well, no one can prove that. But, I can tell you why I believe he is factually not guilty.
The MPD conducted a very thorough investigation intended to prove Scott murdered Laci:
1. 3 searches of the home. The first the same night Laci disappeared. The police were in that home and secured it within an hour after she was reported missing. They did 4 walk-throughs, examined the house for any signs of a crime, and the tech ID officer used an alternate light source to check for blood. All items collected as evidence tested NEGATIVE.
The second search was Dec 26-27, and included the FBI. Luminol tests were performed on anything that looked the least bit suspicious. A cadaver dog was in the home, but did not alert, even though the Prosecutors said she was likely murdered on the night of the 23rd, and thus would have been several hours in the home before being removed. The trailing dog could not trail Laci from the house to the warehouse, where the Prosecution claims Scott brought her in order to pick up his boat. The trail dog did not indicate Laci was in the pickup. The cadaver dog did not alert on the pickup. All items collected as evidence tested NEGATIVE.
The third search was in mid-February, and specifically was to look for evidence of a soft kill enabled by Laci being drugged. Over a hundred bags of evidence were removed. All items tested NEGATIVE. When Laci's body was found, she did not have any indications of being drugged.
2. Extensive wire-tapping, over 3000 calls recorded. No confessions, no incriminating statements. The wiretaps provided no evidence whatsoever that Scott engaged in any crime.
3. Spies among friends and family. Hundreds of phone conversations were recorded at the request of MPD by Amber Frey, Sharon Rocha, and Brent Rocha, and possibly other as yet unkown persons. Again, these produced no confessions or incriminating statements.
4. Extensive ground and gps surveillance. Again, these produced no evidence that he committed a crime.
5. Extensive investigation into his finances. Again, no evidence that he had a financial motive for committing the murder.
6. Extensive efforts to encourage Trade Corp to audit his activities. No evidence - Trade Corps internal audit totally exonerated Scott of any financial mishandling or misappropriations.
7. Extensive investigation by the SDEA into the possibility that Scott was selling anyhdours ammonia to meth makers. Again, no evidence of any such activity, either by Scott or by Trade Corp.
Scott Peterson was put under the microscope in this investigation. If he went to the bathroom, someone knew whether it was to do #1 or #2 and whether he washed his hands, that's how intrusive this investigation was into his life. And yet they could produce no physical evidence, no confession, no incriminating statements of any involvement in any crime at the trial.
Scott Peterson volunteered information about his alibi, provided proof that he was there. No person who is such a criminal genius as to get through almost 4 months of microscopic investigation without leaving any physical evidence or incriminating statements is going to be stupid enough to put himself at the scene of any portion of the crime.
Nor is any person that brilliant going to be stupid enough to describe a different set of clothing for Laci. He would never have been stupid enough to dispose of her body in the same clothes she was wearing the day before (as the Prosecution suggests he did) and then tell the story that she was up and around that morning, and he certainly would be smart enough to describe exactly what she was wearing when he disposed of her body.
Now, to address the question of "legally not guilty."
Even if someone believes in their gut that Scott did murder Laci, we have the question of burden of proof. Distaso shifted the burden of proof, very artfully, I must admit, in his closing rebuttal arguments. He said that it was not reasonable to conclude that anyone other than Scott Peterson put Laci's body in the Bay. That means that if Scott didn't prove someone else did it, you must convict him. The jurors that have spoken out have consistently implied that they put the burden of proof on Scott.
That is unconstitutional; therefore, it is not legal. Scott Peterson should never have been convicted on the evidence presented, and he should never have had the burden of proof placed on his shoulders.

So in my book, he's guilty. I don't believe it should be a death penalty case, but my feeling is the jury did not err on this one.