Is Scott Peterson Guilty or innocent??

I might be missing something but who is Scott Peterson??????

Oh My Gosh, I thought everybody knew who Scott Peterson is:) He's the guy accused of killing his pregnant wife Laci Peterson. They lived in CA and she came up missing on Christmas eve and then in April her remains and her unborn baby boy "Conner" washed up on the shore not far from where Scott was supposed to be fishing on the day she disappeared. I've followed this story from the beginning, for the most part I think he's innocent, just seems to me that after all this time they would have found at least "One" piece of evidence against him other than him cheating on her (which in my book is so low especially since she was 8 months pregnant, that was just so wrong!!). but that doesn't make him a murderer. Just my .02 :D

Michelle Z.

I agree with you MZachow, would he be so stupid as to tell the police where he went fishing if he really dumped her body there and where did he kill her? If he killed at home which would have been his likely choice there would have been evidence. He is a lier and a cheat but that doesn't make him a murderer. If OJ can get off for killing his wife when DNA said he was the one then Scott Peterson should get off in my opinion. It is a sad story because no matter who did it an expecting mother and child died, that is so sad and my heart goes out to Laci's family.

A few years ago there was a woman from my area who was abducted when she was 9 months pregnant. The woman was killed and the child was cut out of the woman's womb and survived. The person who abducted this woman was a woman who was unable to have children and tried to pass off she was pregnant and began raising this woman's child. She ended up killing herself when the police cornered her...

I think the Scott Peterson situation is similar to this. Some people just get so freaking crazy when they want a child. They probably abducted Laci in hopes of getting her baby but Conner was killed in the process... Statistics, however, aren't working in his favor...most wives are killed by their husbands.

He is guilty in my opinion, and it has nothing to do with being a cheater-probably more than half of the men in this world have done that. Why speak of her in the past tense when she was only missing? Why try and sell the house and her car if she was only missing? If my loved 1 was missing I wouldnt move or change my phone number...how would they contact me if they could? Why head down south, change your appearence, and carry a bunch of cash and someone elses id like ur trying to flee to mexico? Its so funny that he told his girlfriend that his wife died when he was still married to her. Why lie in interviews? Why say the babys room is waiting for his son but really being used as a storage room? Why not get in touch with people who are trying to help you find your missing wife but tell others u did? There are so many WHYS I could go on and on!!! OJ was guilty and so is peterson.

I think like his lawyers, all of the stuff is circumstancial, it does not prove that he murdered her, and besides, even her own mother spoke of her in the past tense before her body washed ashore?? We are hearing everything in the way the detectives want us to hear it too, guess a person ought to wait and hear out the Defenses side of everything.

Michelle Z.

He is as guilty as they come.............in my opinion.

U got that right Kat!!

Guilty!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

guilty ( in my opinion ).It must be an epidemic. How about the other husband that killed his pregnant wife and threw her body in a dumpster. He was really whacko...pretending like he was going to med school!! My prayers are with all of the families..how sad! Judy

Yes, he was wacko!! Instead of working in a mental hospital, he should have been a patient himself.

Michelle Z.

i say hes guilty and i also think OJ was quilty

I agree...I think OJ is guilty. Someone used that argument today when discussing the Scott Peterson case on TV today. They said if some deranged killer killed Laci why hasn't he killed again? Just like with the with the OJ's murders if it was some other deranged killer why haven't they killed again? Something to think about...

That's a good point, but sometimes I think some cases are more publicized than others, we all know there are killings everyday, we just don't hear about all of them. I guess I just want to believe the good in people, it just tears me up to think he could kill her knowing he was killing his own son, that is so heartbreaking and without any hard evidence, I just hate to think there could be another person sitting on death row that could be innocent.

Michelle Z.

Well, I voted, "Innocent" until proven guilty. So far I don't think he's been proven guilty. And I mean Absolutely, no disrespect to Laci & their unborn child & family, may God rest their soul. I just can't say Scott is guilty, the evidence doesnt' add up to guilty. :twocents:

What nice family man goes fishing on X-mas eve? He did a pretty good job of covering it up - but not good enough - she was still found....sorry, folks, he belongs where he is...he needed her gone so he could continue with Chicky-poo...

Guilty....the leading cause of death of pregnant women is murder...by the father of the baby.

I put "I just don't kno0w," but I am leaning towards guilty. He definitely had motive, means, and opportunity. But I'm not right there seeing the evidence and watching him react. I only wish criminal cases involving "regular folks" were given this level of scrutiny and reasonable doubt.

My hubby would go fishing Christmas Eve morning, in fact I would tell him to go. Who needs him under my feet all day while I am cooking and getting ready for Christmas Eve Dinner.

Not really sure but I'm leaning more toward not guilty. There are too many questions that can't seem to be answered. One big one for me is that another pregnant women was found a few months before Lacy in the same place and her husband is in jail for her murder and he also says he is not guilty. Another is the doctor who signed the death cert. says the baby was a full term baby, Lacy was not full term so how could the baby be full term except if she was not killed till after Christmas eve and knowing that they were looking where scott said he was fishing the person who did this could have dumped her and the baby there to make it look like Scott did it. Than on the other hand why was scott selling her car when he didn't know if she was dead or alive. Why was he so cold, maybe he really didn t love her but does that mean he killed her. Alot of things with this case just don't add up. Only he knows the truth, we never will.

I would have to say Guilty!

Guilty....Scott & OJ.

.02


~m

Okay I know what you are talking about now, I have been reading up on it all day now and I think he is guilty!!!

Guilty.

I believe he is guilty with a capital G.. as for O.J. ask any lawyer.. he is definitely guilty! But, alas, just because someone has been proven not-guilty doesn't mean they are actually innocent.. He had some smart lawyers working for him.

scott peterson was checking on the computer about the currents fishermen don't care about the currents he is guilty as hell hope he gets what he deserves

Moving this poll to the world prison and related news forum.

Not guilty

Well ah, let's see. He died his hair, tried to trade Lacy's car in, had $10K in his pocket and an extra girlfriend. Duhhh, of course he is not guilty. Oh and neither is Marc Hacking.

I truly believe he is as guilty as they come...... but I also think that the procecution doesn't have enough evidence to convict him, in all honesty what they have is purely circumstancial....

Since I haven't seen the trial to see the evidence ... I don't know if he's guilty or innocent. If I listen to the court of public opinion I would say "guilty".

I'd say Guilty, but I'm way tired of listening to that woman comment about it on Court TV!

I believe SP is guilty- after listening to his phone conversations with Amber Frey it's clear that he is not only a liar, but a darn good one. It actually frightened me to hear someone lie so convincingly. Now, I know being unfaithful doesn't make him a murderer, but when you add the facts that he told Amber that he had 'lost' his wife weeks before Laci disappeared, he would be able to be with Amber 'exclusively' in a matter of a few weeks, that he bought a boat, made cement anchors, and a myriad of other things that unfortunately are no more than 'circumstantial' evidence...well- you join the dots.

Having said all that, I don't believe there is enough evidence for him to be convicted. So although I think he is guilty, I doubt a jury will- not in light of what has been presented, anyway.

I would like to know why anyone would think he is innocent.

I am looking at it from the legal points, the prosecution has no solid evidence against Peterson everything they brought up it seems the defense has a counter for it and that places DOUBT that he might not have done it. Thats all they need to prove, I don't think the prosecution has proved BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT that Scott did it. It's sad he could have done it, his actions did say alot. But from watching what is going on the prosecution hasn't proved that he did it. OJ was guilty but got away with it, there was evidence pointing to him and he got off because the defense placed DOUBT in the minds of the jurors, that's all Peterson's attorneys have to do.

Scott Peterson had more than one affair. He had others on in the past and Lacy knew about it. I know that men have a hard time dealing with their emotions, but the way he wentis hard to say how anybody would handle a situation like that. There is so much pointing the guilt at him just like there was so much pointing at OJ. Remember when OJ took off on that high speed chase for hours on end after the murder, and then when they finally got Scott he was heading towards Mexico with tons of money and his brothers ids. He even bought a car under his mothers name. That isn't the type f behavior an innocent man would be capable of in my opinion. I think OJ and Scott are guilty. Scott could probably put a glove that fits perfectly and hold it up in front of the jury and say it dosen't fit, and the jury would believe him at this point because the media has made him into a celebrity.

For some reason, I was enthralled with the OJ trial and watched the "recap" everynight after work. Regardless of what I thought REALLY happened, I did not believe the jury would/could find him guilty beyond a reas. doubt - and they didn't. I think it was part defense placing doubt, but I think an even bigger part was prosecution screwing up evidence, having witnesses that perjured themselves, boring the jury ad nauseaum, etc.

I haven't followed the Scott Peterson case that close at all, but I (personally) think he's guilty - so many things just don't add up. What was up with the makeover, money and heading to Mexico? Odd. He seems like a sociopath to me. Doesn't mean he's a murderer, but still..... Whether he'll be convicted or not is a whole 'nother story.

In both cases, it seems that no one else on the planet meant these women harm unless it were a totally random thing. As personal as both deaths were (wounds), I really doubt the random act thing. I just think he's guilty, but he'll probably be living in Florida next year, hanging out on the beach with OJ.

wow i cant believe this post is here. Ever heard of trial by media? How can you say someone is guilty based on what you have heard on the news? Whether he is or is not guilty I dont know, but it is very dangerous for anyone who is accused of a crime either rightfully or falsely when the general public believe everything they hear on the news. No wonder there are so many falsely convicted people sitting in prison these days.

I think he's GUILTY! There's too much that doesn't make sense. I wish I could be in the courtroom watching his facial expressions and his demeanor. That all says a lot. There's no doubt in my mind that he's guilty. I guess we'll just have to wait and see if the jury finds him guilty.

Innocent until proven guilty ! So my answer is: I just don't know.

Nemisis - you're right re: "innocent until proven guilty", but that's for the jury to decide. The general public does speculate (unfairly, I admit), just as people are doing here. They always speculate, unfortunately, according to media, gossip, opinion, assumption, etc.

Juries, however, are not allowed to speculate. And if they are swayed by the media, they are not suppose to be on the jury. Innocent people aren't in prison because of gossip or speculation by the general public. They are there because a jury convicted them. If a juror had prior information that swayed them, they were suppose to be honest about that in jury selection. They would choose people like the 2nd poster that said, "I'm sorry, but who is Scott Peterson?" (humor). The whole country does this and yes, it's unfortunate, but the media is so powerful. Hopefully the members of the jury haven't been corrupted by the media, their neighbor, their co-workers, etc. I don't think any of us have to worry about being on the jury!

It is really too bad that the public doesn't follow the same rules - i.e. if someone is charged with child molestation and it is printed in the newpaper and that person is later found innocent, what do you think the public "chooses" to remember about that person? The "guilty until proven innocent" is devastating to the innocent, but it's seems more prevalent than ever with the internet, TV, newspapers, magazines, etc. That'd be a really tough concept to tackle in this country.

Well, he certailny looks guilty to me, and I'm basing this on his "getaway" preparations, the bodies washing up where he admitted he was (and I don't think he believed they would find them at all), his demeanor, and mostly those phone conversations with Amber Frey that they played. If he really was suffering over a missing wife, he would not have had the same conversations at all. We all find it hard to believe and wish things like this didn't happen, but statistics bear out that they do all the time. I have a lot of questions and am curious to see what the defense comes up with, but at this point I just feel sorry that the talents of Mark Garregos and Johnny Cochran are wasted on the guilty instead of helping the innocent who are locked away because they couldn'd afford justice.

On A&E right now (8pm pst) a documentry on the SP case. Sorry I couldnt tell u earlier, just found out and took 4ever for my stupid puter to get online!

I think Peterson is guilty, but there isn't any positive evidence that has been presented to prove it. The prosecution should hope for a hung jury or what ever so they can re-try him later if they find anything. As for OJ, they had all the evidence against him, but ole' Johnny came up with that " if it dosen't fit, don't convict" Well, naturally a glove that had been blood soaked and dried wouldn't fit over a hand that was also wearing a lytex glove, and the jury stupidly fell for it, or felt it was an easy way out.:confused:

I have also followed this since day one. The guy is a liar and cheater, and I think he is guilty, he's a creep!!!

Not all liars, cheater and creeps are killers, I know this to be true because I was married to one:) I don't know how anyone could KNOW that someone was guilty or innocent? Therefore I would have to say "I just don't know". Barb

Not really sure if he's guilty or not. But I do know that people always suspect the person closest to the victim. I think everyone has private lives that no one knows about. I also know that once a case like this reaches the media, you're a murderer even if you are exonerated? (is that the word)? No one will ever look at you the same. Its the same way for people who are mistakenly incarcerated...

In my opinon he is guilty. Why would he dye his hair blonde and try to leave the country with that amount of money. I don't think the cheating has anything to do with it, if he wouldn't have been cought for the 2 mentioned above I would think he was innocent.

I definetly think that he is guilty, but I do not think that a jury will be able to find him guilty because of the lack of evidence. He is gonna get off!

Not all liars, cheater and creeps are killers, I know this to be true because I was married to one:) I don't know how anyone could KNOW that someone was guilty or innocent? Therefore I would have to say "I just don't know". BarbThat's true, but follow that line of logic to its natural conclusion: not all liars, cheaters and creeps are killers, we know this because their wives are still alive. It's the ones with the DEAD wives that are also killers. Just because not all adulterers murder their wives doesn't mean it's not a powerful motive for those who do. And granted, we almost never KNOW whether someone is guilty or innocent- we would have to see the deed with our own eyes, and even then a good attorney would have you questioning that. Hence, the legal standard of reasonable doubt. Naturally, none of us getting the second hand news on tv will have as clear a picture as the jury, but again, based on the information we do have, GUILTY!!

Just my opinion-From watching him, reading the testimony, hearing him, listening to the TV, radio, court reporters, his actions, I believe he is guilty.

I am not sure if he is going to get convicted though. I feel there is a strong possibility there will be a hung jury.

Just have to wait and see.

I think there is enough C evidence to convict him. The DA's office pieced together a puzzle and all the pieces fit. Last night on Larry King live it was stated that they thought the defense case would be just like sand threw up in the air and blown everywhere. Unless they could prove Conner was born before Lacey was killed they had lost. I agree. To many strikes against Scott I believe the jury is humans and have the same thoughts the American public does--the majority says GUILTY

Proud grannie

me myself i just dont know. well atleast he should be innocent in the eyes of the law until its proven that hes not. no one has ay specific evidence to nail him on...everything theyre going off of is the what ifs or what they think is the situation. they have no finger prints, no dna or anything of that kind to specifically nail the murder on him, and to me they cant accuse him if they cant find a reason to. you cant say someone is guilty just because they had an affair. a lot of people cheat on their wives and it dont mean they killed her or would even be capable of doing such a thing. i think that hes gonna end up getting off because they have no reason to hold him. so in my personal opinion i think hes innocent until they can prove otherwise.

My feeling on this is that he is guilty. Based on his actions after he reported her missing. Come on now, tell me how many of you would do the things he did if YOUR loved one was missing? Me, Well I would be waiting by the phone and at the police station or detectives office daily........no doubt. Regardless of his affair, who knows what may have set him off. All I know is laci and her unborn child did not deserve what they got! If he did do it, he will be judged by the greatest of all, The lord. Unfortunately in these media frenzied cases the suspect usually goes free. Hell, If I had that kind of money I bet I wouldnt be waiting 18 - 30 years for my boo, ya feel me?

Point blank he did it or he was apart of it in some way!! I mean come on now, for a guy who supposely didn't kill his pregnant wife & his unborn child that hasn't shown NO EMOTIONS at all. When Laci went Missing I was 7months pregnant with my son and it made me sick to know that someone that was pregnant also just like me was missing and then to know that it was her own husband-thats just sick!! I mean with the whole conversations with his girlfriend he never said anything about his missing son not a word. I know if I was missing and I was pregnant with my son and if my husband didn't murder me he would surely go to the ends of the earth to find out who did and he would everyday be in tears and showing emotions about us. You can just look at Scott Peterson and you see a plain out killer with no memorse at all. Nothing, thats just sick!!! He needs to be in a mental hospital I mean who kills there pregnant wife & unborn child and doesn't even give 2 cents about it and show some emotions about it.

i don't know if he's guilty or not. I haven't followed the case to much and I live here in Southern CA. I do empathize with is family because I've been in their shoes just as many of us have. It is a tough thing to go through. And you never know, his parents may end up here on PTO one day.

I wish that my loved one waas able to get a high priced attorney during his trial. But it is amazing that those attorney's only seek out the high profile cases. My family had even contacted Johnny Cocran's office and was told that the case wasn't big enough and that they could hand us of to some entry-level attorney.

Anyhoo, my guess is he will probably get off. If the jury follows the instructions of "beyond a reasonable doubt" and the defense does a good job, like they are supposed to do, he will be set free. We sometimes forget that the defense is hired to do just that, create in jurors minds a reasonable doubt, regardless of the crime or media attention. Hair color change and 10k in your pocket and a mistress don't make you guilty.

And what's with the mistress, acting like she is a victim? She was his wxxre. What he told her is nothing different than any married man tells a woman he's sleeping with on the side. What is Gloria Allred representing her for? Is there nobility in being someone's mistress? My 2 cents

How was she a WxxRE? Because she had a boyfriend who lied to her about being married? How is that her fault. The scary thing is that if he did do it whos to say she wouldnt have been next? He is the one who lied, dont blame her for it.

Why head down south, change your appearence, and carry a bunch of cash and someone elses id like ur trying to flee to mexico? This is easily explained. Who the heck wants to live 24 hrs with the poparazzi following you around. This man was followed EVERYWHERE! He was tortured verbally BEFORE he has ever been found guilty. Society makes me SICK. We condemn without even knowing ALL the facts. Yes it's despicable to have an affair ESPECIALLY when she's getting ready to have a baby. But what idiot would GIVE the location away if that's where he dumped her? At this point I'm leaning towards the innocent factor. ALL his letters to his family and friends talk about how much he misses her and longs for her. How deeply wounded he is by the loss of his child. At the same time, I don't understand the selling of her vehicle either. The talking of her in past tense doesn't hold much water with me. It was OBVIOUS from get go that something was wrong. NO ONE knew where she was. He may have believed in his heart that she was gone yet hoped she was still alive somewhere. I also feel deep sadness for her family. NO one deserves what this family has been thru :(

Stacy

How was she a WxxRE? Because she had a boyfriend who lied to her about being married? How is that her fault. The scary thing is that if he did do it whos to say she wouldnt have been next? He is the one who lied, dont blame her for it.
I agree Starfish, what was she to know? She freakin lived an hour away from this family. No way for her to know his true life. The only thing I find ironic, is how she allowed this man to pick up her child within a few short days or weeks of knowing him. That's a scarey thought in itself. But by NO means is ANY of this her fault.

Stacy

We are having some problems with bad language being used here (wxxre) I have removed the one's I have seen please help me out here and do your bad words with some x's or something so that it does not offend anyone. Love Barb

[QUOTE=StacysWar030]This is easily explained. Who the heck wants to live 24 hrs with the poparazzi following you around. This man was followed EVERYWHERE! He was tortured verbally BEFORE he has ever been found guilty. Society makes me SICK. We condemn without even knowing ALL the facts. Yes it's despicable to have an affair ESPECIALLY when she's getting ready to have a baby. But what idiot would GIVE the location away if that's where he dumped her? At this point I'm leaning towards the innocent factor. ALL his letters to his family and friends talk about how much he misses her and longs for her. How deeply wounded he is by the loss of his child. At the same time, I don't understand the selling of her vehicle either. The talking of her in past tense doesn't hold much water with me. It was OBVIOUS from get go that something was wrong. NO ONE knew where she was. He may have believed in his heart that she was gone yet hoped she was still alive somewhere. I also feel deep sadness for her family. NO one deserves what this family has been thru :(
This was a good ploy by the defense attorneys but I don't buy it. Innocent people defend themselves passionately, guilty ones hit the road (OJ). Of course there are exceptions to every rule, but he fits too many of the red flags. Those letters just show what a bullsh!!!er he is when he knows people will see the contents of those letters and it will work to his advantage. I would have given a lot more credence to him telling Amber Frey on the phone how hurt he was by the loss of his child, but he never mentioned it because he didn't know anyone was listening and he had his new playmate to lose. Cold hearted opportunist- cold hearted killer. I also feel sadness for her family, and for his. I think they truly believe in his innocence and prove what we all know: when we love someone, Denial ain't just a river in Egypt. This makes me dislike him even more. Assuming for the sake of argument that he is guilty, he's doing them no favor by allowing them to believe he's not. They have mortgaged their house and are going through hell at the trial, at odds with Laci's family and most of the public, don't they deserve the truth? (And you're right- they might well show up here someday seeking support. I could give it wholeheartedly as someone facing the loved-one-in-prison ordeal, but not in the "my poor son got a bum rap" capacity. ) Well, the trial is almost over- we can't expect the truth out of him, I'm curious to see what truth is determined by the jury. (Oh yeah- as far as giving away the location: he needed an alibi as to where he was that day, and there was always the chance that someone had seen him. No harm in telling where you were when you weighted the body down with concrete and never expected it to be found. Many more clever and expereinced criminals than him have made the mistake of thinking they knew more about crime scenes than the police!)

He is as guilty as they come.............in my opinion.
I have to agree here...

This was a good ploy by the defense attorneys but I don't buy it. Innocent people defend themselves passionately, guilty ones hit the road (OJ). Of course there are exceptions to every rule, but he fits too many of the red flags. He went to his parents house. I hardly call that fleeing. ANYONE could have dumped her in that lake AFTER the word was out that he went fishing there. It's ALL circumstantial. THere is absolutely NO evidence he did this. NONE! I agree not all his actions afterward were of upmost character. Not everything adds up. I'm not saying he's guilty or innocent, just that there is DEFINATELY a reasonable doubt.

Stacy

I understand how people think he is guilty. However, I really do not have faith in our juidicial system. I have not heard all of the evidence. There are lots of guilty people out of jail and many innocent ones in jail. So who am I to judge?

I am not serving on his jury. I agree with dointime2- no faith in the system.
If he did it--he'll probaly be found not guilty- vice-versa. who knows.

oj got away with murder too

It is a really good thing I am not on the jury, I could never convict him because they have NO evidence against him. I remember here on PTO there was a cop who was convicted of killing a lady he cheated on his wife with. After serving some time, he was found not guilty and they found the guy who really did it.

My gut instinct says he probably did do it, but PROBABLY is just not good enough. We as a nation cannot just keep locking up people who PROBABLY did it.

you know what!? i am crazy but i dont want him to be guilty cuz he is so hot!!! lol but hellwe know he is and it will give peace to lacys family :)

Flygirl, I remember him too. He was a strong man and was put through so much on nothing but "well, he's probably the guy who did it, lets make the pieces fit".

My personal feelings are that I just don't know if Scott is guilty or not.

But legally, there has not been enough evidence for "beyond a shadow of a doubt". The DA just hasn't done it, IMO. Based on that he should be found not guilty. Now we just have to see if the jury remembers the law and does their duty or convicts on *feelings*.

He went to his parents house. I hardly call that fleeing. ANYONE could have dumped her in that lake AFTER the word was out that he went fishing there. It's ALL circumstantial. THere is absolutely NO evidence he did this. NONE! I agree not all his actions afterward were of upmost character. Not everything adds up. I'm not saying he's guilty or innocent, just that there is DEFINATELY a reasonable doubt.

StacyGoing to your parent's house is one thing. Going to your parent's house that just happens to be close to the Mexican border with your car stuffed with camping and survival gear, $10,00 in cash, and your hair dyed orange is quite another. And, FYI, circumstantial evidence is still evidence and fully admissable in court. Very few murders are committed on videotape or at the Superbowl on the 50 yard line during halftime so there could be a few witnesses. Most of the evidence in most murder trials is circumstantial. It's not as telling as a good bloody fingerprint, but with enough of it a reasonable person would find it hard to deny the truth that was in front of their face.

you know what!? i am crazy but i dont want him to be guilty cuz he is so hot!!! lol but hellwe know he is and it will give peace to lacys family :)Apparently you're not alone. There was a story on tv tonight about all the women writing to him in jail. Of course, even O.J. doesn.t seem to have a problem getting a date.:confused:

Yea women tend to like serial murderers. Ive seen lots of shows where women love them like the Night Stalker, and those brothers who killed their father, and Manson. Hes cute until he chokes you to death.

What about the anchors made from cement?
Defense says he used the cement for doing things around thre house YET
the 1 anchor they found was made with that cement, Wheres the rest?
When he was arrested he had $15,000 in cash on him,brothers drivers license, and camping gear?
Can we all say G U I L T Y

Well, defense says Scott made 1 anchor from the cement and used the rest in his driveway. So there isn't any missing cement if you believe the defense. The DA says he thinks it was used for weights but was never able to prove it. I don't feel that was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

As for Scott running, how many of our loved ones wanted to run when things looked bad? All that proves to me is that Scott was scared. It could be that he was trying to outrun his guilt, but again it's not proof beyond a shadow of a doubt to me.

I put guilty cause thats how I have felt through it all.....but I would definetly go into it open mindedly and look over all the evidence first! Laci looked like such a beautiful,happy woman too....it's too bad something so tragic happened to her and her baby!

I already posted that I thought he was guilty. But now, I think there may be a "hung" jury and the state of California will re-try him and I believe there will be a conviction eventually. I am disappointed that the judge decided to not allow a TV camera into the courtroom for the trial and/or verdict.

Does anyone else watch CourtTV's coverage. Nancy Grace makes me laugh with her smirky faces when someone disagrees with her. Although this is no laughing matter.

And earlier comments about Amber Frey being a bit on the slutty side. In my opinion, she is. She and Scott had sexual relations on their first date. Call me a prude but in this day and age...to give it up on the first date...icky. She has had another baby with some other guy she fell in love with and married since this fiasco with Peterson last year. She broke up with SP in March and had already become pregnant in September? Seems like lots of men have BEEN THERE!

I am in the UK and had never heard of this case until stumbling upon this thread, but first and foremost, I am of the mind, innocent until proven guilty, secondly judging by what has been said on here pertaining to evidence or lack thereof I can say that based on the case presented before me here, if on the jury I would say not guilty, nothing that has been said here is beyond reasonable doubt and even fellow PTO'ers have given potential 'explanations' to quash any of this reputed evidence. The other mitigating factor for me is, correct me if I am wrong, but this is a Capital case? is it really right to put somebody on death row and possible extinguish their life based on a bunch of 'maybes' and 'it looks like' do Americans truly wish to possibly kill yet another innocent person? and also of course create more victims, haven't his family suffered enough? What happened to this lady and her child is horredous, but also it is possible that what has happened to this man is equally horrifying, we all grieve in different ways and cope with harrowing situations in different ways, I for one am glad I do not live in a country where people are constantly trialed by media and almost always seem to be guilty unless proven innocent.

i have to agree with all that say he is guilty, but i don't believe they proved enough to give them a guilty sign, like today they wanted to see the boat, but why? to see if the state has proven enough - it will hold cement and a body, I feel for lacy's familey , i think he will walk. as far as oj. I was one who believe he did not do it, i watch every minute of that case, he may have paid someone but he did not do it himself, that is what i believe. I think marcas allen did it if you want the truth, but them again that is just my thinking. Stay Strong everyone.

I am in the UK and had never heard of this case until stumbling upon this thread, but first and foremost, I am of the mind, innocent until proven guilty, secondly judging by what has been said on here pertaining to evidence or lack thereof I can say that based on the case presented before me here, if on the jury I would say not guilty, nothing that has been said here is beyond reasonable doubt and even fellow PTO'ers have given potential 'explanations' to quash any of this reputed evidence. The other mitigating factor for me is, correct me if I am wrong, but this is a Capital case? is it really right to put somebody on death row and possible extinguish their life based on a bunch of 'maybes' and 'it looks like' do Americans truly wish to possibly kill yet another innocent person? and also of course create more victims, haven't his family suffered enough? What happened to this lady and her child is horredous, but also it is possible that what has happened to this man is equally horrifying, we all grieve in different ways and cope with harrowing situations in different ways, I for one am glad I do not live in a country where people are constantly trialed by media and almost always seem to be guilty unless proven innocent.

Very well put!! :thumbsup:

Michelle Z.

you know, if you just watch his face. The fake interviews he did, come on people this man was cheating on his preg. wife.

There is just no one else who would of wanted her out of the way.

I say guilty, guitly, guilty.......I have been following this trial since day one. And here it is not like my opinion will send him to jail. But, if you watch his actions and the way he talks of her. You would just know without there being a thread of evidence.

He reminds me of my 14 yr. old son when he is trying to lie his way out of something.....

Kat

I am in the UK and had never heard of this case until stumbling upon this thread, but first and foremost, I am of the mind, innocent until proven guilty, secondly judging by what has been said on here pertaining to evidence or lack thereof I can say that based on the case presented before me here, if on the jury I would say not guilty, nothing that has been said here is beyond reasonable doubt and even fellow PTO'ers have given potential 'explanations' to quash any of this reputed evidence. The other mitigating factor for me is, correct me if I am wrong, but this is a Capital case? is it really right to put somebody on death row and possible extinguish their life based on a bunch of 'maybes' and 'it looks like' do Americans truly wish to possibly kill yet another innocent person? and also of course create more victims, haven't his family suffered enough? What happened to this lady and her child is horredous, but also it is possible that what has happened to this man is equally horrifying, we all grieve in different ways and cope with harrowing situations in different ways, I for one am glad I do not live in a country where people are constantly trialed by media and almost always seem to be guilty unless proven innocent.Of course, we are just amusing ourselves with speculation here and are not on the jury where we would take the standard of proof more seriously. We are giving our opinions based on the information and impressions we have. Scott Peterson will not be convicted or acquitted on this website, so don't agonize about it. Because the judge did not allow cameras, we know we are not getting access to all the information the jury is, and in some cases we know things the jury doesn't because things are reported that are not allowed at trial, so their decision will be based on a more controlled set of facts. Also, having served on juries, I can assure you that the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" is taken very seriously and every consideration is given to the defendant, but sometimes you just can't ignore the truth. One poster kept mentioning "beyond a shadow of doubt"- no, it's beyond a reasonable doubt: the first would be practically impossible and no guilty person would ever be convicted. As to whether it's a capital case, that depends on what degree of murder the jury decides. If it's less than 1st degree, then no possible death penalty would be involved. But again, at any rate, it doesn't matter here- we are merely discussing a news event that's getting a lot of attention here- we are not actually voting on a verdict. And are you seriously saying that the UK never covers sensational cases in the news??!! I doubt that!

I already posted that I thought he was guilty. But now, I think there may be a "hung" jury and the state of California will re-try him and I believe there will be a conviction eventually. I am disappointed that the judge decided to not allow a TV camera into the courtroom for the trial and/or verdict.

Does anyone else watch CourtTV's coverage. Nancy Grace makes me laugh with her smirky faces when someone disagrees with her. Although this is no laughing matter.

And earlier comments about Amber Frey being a bit on the slutty side. In my opinion, she is. She and Scott had sexual relations on their first date. Call me a prude but in this day and age...to give it up on the first date...icky. She has had another baby with some other guy she fell in love with and married since this fiasco with Peterson last year. She broke up with SP in March and had already become pregnant in September? Seems like lots of men have BEEN THERE! I'm with you- I loves me some Court TV. Nancy Grace is my favorite- I call all of them "the opinionated blondes" (her, Catherine Crier, that Lisa Bloom that's the daughter of Gloria Allred, and the skinny one they always have posted outside the courthouse). They are so smirky and convinced of everyone's guilt, there is less pretense of objectivity than the Fox News, but they sure are fun to watch!! As for Amber Frey, I find her kind of pitiful. I was so surprised to see her because Laci was so cute and she is just kind of skanky looking. You always expect an adulterer to be trading up, and that was not the case. But, I think she's one of those not-very-pretty girls who try very hard to be glamorous, low self-esteem and desperately seeking love and attention, so I don't dislike her, I just feel sorry for her. And it had to be hard for her coming forward and facing negative press when the world was so captivated by Laci, so good for her. Her new relationshp was way soon, but she probably felt a need for closeness and support. I hope it works out for her. Sure would like to know the details of her relationship with her father- bet he's no Ward Cleaver!!!

Well I said it before and I am still saying it, I believe it will be a hung jury for whatever the reason.

Finally they found him guilty.

Through all the media blitz I tried to keep an open mind about weither he was guilty or not guilty, and it turns out he was found guilty. I watched the E True Hollywood story on this case last night and after watching all of his actions and reactions I think he is guilty now too. I also think he is a sociopath. He never cried and the look in his eyes was so cold all of the time. None of us will never know the truth of the matter unless he decides to confess of what he knows. He admitted on the phone tapings with Amber Frey that he knew what had happened and he wanted to tell her, but he couldn't.

Well thank god GUILTY was the verdict!

Guilty or not it was never proven. What bothers me about all of this, is once again someone is going to be sentenced to die or in life for the rest of their life without any evidence that they commited the crime. It just goes to show in this country you are guilty until proven innocent, not innocent until proven guilty.


Michelle Z.

I know at least 12 people that disagree with you.

He is guilty, it was proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and now he will have to pay for the horrific crime he committed.

I have followed with interest (based solely upon the number of replies/hits), the comments about this case. The number of hits supports more interest than any posted petition request that may actually have helped our loved ones (ie: see Judge Henderson sticky), and I am appalled that so much input (opinions and speculation) abounds more often in regard to this journalistic sensationalism versus reality, about jurisprudence to our loved ones.

Signing this petition would certainly have been more of a productive number of minutes spent on your computer for support of our loved ones than responding with an opinion to the final decision of guilt vs. innocence of Scott Peterson.

I would hope that everyone of you would reconsider spending as much time sharing your opinion to such a thread as you could to replying and sharing your knowledge to requests of support questions/prison reform issues/educational opportunities, and the other issues that affect our loved ones, as I have witnessed about opinions of Scott's guilt.

I do understand that PTO is a sharing of feelings and expressions about prison-related issues, but when I get pm's from new members that cannot fight their way through immediate concerns about "real" loved ones, it gives me some concern about this main-page forum for seeking true support with real experiences and answers.

It is hard to navigate through this website for specific answers to our questions about every single prison in regard to rules, packages, visitation, etc. and I feel sorry for new visitors to see the main page clogged with opinions about sensationalistic charges/trials/results, that don't apply to our loved ones' reality.

Maybe we could have a forum about "crazy/sensational cases" that we would like to follow for opinions. I hope that the front page of California PTO could be devoted to our real concerns for every new potential member to find answers or resources for their loved one.

I do recognize that many of us do use this main forum for any information, but journalistic sensationalism devoted to individuals within the media's control of potential outcomes does not belong here for every one of us that experiences a true reality with the DA/PDA/CDC/CCPOA control in our lives.

We live in the real world, and need to find answers and support from real people with real experiences.

How about your loved one? Spend time on your computer with real issues to help them, yourself, and others. Knowlege is power. Pass it around. Tam

scott is innocent!!!! ....... a innocent man is now in prison for the rest of his life for a murder he didnt do. the modesto police and media are to blame for it...they had him guilty in there minds already only cause he made a mistake and had an affair. im from modesto also and im behind scott 100% always.....melisa

also one more thing...that nancy grace woman...lol shes a joke , she needs to keep her personal opinions about scott to herself,,,and about many other people too,....shes just an woman who thinks she knows it all but she dont.....im sorry but i do not like her whatsoever...ty

:thumbsup: INNOCENT!!!!!.........INNOCENT....INNOCENT!!!

I Am Still 100% Behind Scott Peterson And I Always Will Be.....

I watched the profile of the crime on Court TV the other night and seems to me hs is guilty. The pieces fit together. Sorry.

I believe he's about as guilty as guilty as can be, and, that had he not gotten caught when he did, that Amber Frey would be "gone" too because when they got him, he had ropes, duct tape, a blanket and the like in his trunk. Amber knows the story, and two claps to her for resultantly leaving him alone.

I think he's guilty as charged. Cut and dried.

I think he did it to be totally free of any responsibility or obligation to himself, in short he wanted EVERY dime he and Laci had for himself, AND he didn't want the responsibility and obligation to his unborn son, Connor. Hence, he made fooish choices and killed the BOTH of them- Laci AND Connor.

I guess he thought if he killed her while she was still pregnant, and dumped the body in the SF Bay, no one would ever know, and no one would ever connect him to her going missing like that. I guess he thought he was enough of an actor, and BS'er to fool Law Enforcement and Laci's family...apparently, he failed, and now has to pay the ultimate consequences for his actions...Kind of funny how what is done in the dark of night,finds you out in the daylight!

Nita

Yes I belive he is guilty of killing his pregnant wife Laci Peterson. They lived in CA and she came up missing on Christmas eve .I watch it all on court tv.

An affair while being married is more common than people think. Scott obviously was being dishonest to Amber about things but what cheating husband tells the truth? The cold hard facts are that they did not have any evidence proving a murder occured by him. He took the police right to where he was fishing. Why would he do that knowing the bodies are there in the water? That doesn;t sound like someone trying to cover up a murder. As far as talking about her in the past tense.... I think alot of people would automatically do that. She was missing for a great period of time. The hope that she was actually still alive was a far stretch. just my thoughts......

I think Scott could possible guility but there are also things that have happened that make me feel that he is not guility. Why would you lead the police to the spot you killed your wife. Affair or not I just dont know anymore. I have been reading all the books that were wrote about the hole situation but there is alot of "what if's" in all the books. One thing for sure neither Laci or Conner deserved the fate that they were given. May they rest in peace and hopefully she will come back to tell someone who did this and give evidence.:o :(

Innocent all the way.

well i have to have an open mind......because i was involved in a trial just like scott petersons... and i have to say that no matter how much is known from both sides no one will ever know the truth except god, scott and lacey.......so i try not to pass judgement at all...because it always comes home to you.....ive learned from expirence....but i also have to say opinions is something everyone has and they are intitled to.......but becareful about the way somethings are said.....

angela

guilty ( in my opinion ). Watch him get off the death penilty.

guilty

i think hes guilty all the way he just has the persona of an evil person that would do this is my opinion

Flat out guilty...he had the motive and everything presented in court fell right into place. He is so guilty and I am glad he will never be able to hurt another soul again.

Guilty as charged, period.

Well......I am not really sure .I do tend to swing to the guilty side ....but I also think that just because he was such a cad..does not mean he is guilty of murder either.I am so undecided.

I think he's guilty

I think that Scott Peterson is as innocent as OJ..............NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!

I agree...I think OJ is guilty. Someone used that argument today when discussing the Scott Peterson case on TV today. They said if some deranged killer killed Laci why hasn't he killed again? Just like with the with the OJ's murders if it was some other deranged killer why haven't they killed again? Something to think about...

so, how is it that you know these people haven't killed again????

He is guilty in my opinion, and it has nothing to do with being a cheater-probably more than half of the men in this world have done that. Why speak of her in the past tense when she was only missing? Why try and sell the house and her car if she was only missing? If my loved 1 was missing I wouldnt move or change my phone number...how would they contact me if they could? Why head down south, change your appearence, and carry a bunch of cash and someone elses id like ur trying to flee to mexico? Its so funny that he told his girlfriend that his wife died when he was still married to her. Why lie in interviews? Why say the babys room is waiting for his son but really being used as a storage room? Why not get in touch with people who are trying to help you find your missing wife but tell others u did? There are so many WHYS I could go on and on!!! OJ was guilty and so is peterson.

i highly suggest you research the facts instead of just believing what the media tells you, before condemning a man like that. by the way, you are way off on your facts. i suggest scottpetersonappeal. org to find the facts

the facts are a jury convicted this guy of murder in the first degree with some very strong evidence. Juries arent always right,of course, but a website run by his parents may not be the most balanced source of information either.

Something I hope everyone here considers is that Scott IS entitled to the same rights as the rest of us. I.E. innocent unless proven guilty by a jury of his peers. None of us has any right to say he's guilty unless we know for sure first hand that he is. For as the Holy Bible says, you will be judged by how you judge others. I realize some of you are not Christians, even then it holds true. Just wait until you are found guilty of something you didn't do.