will scott peterson actually walk fre...

will scott peterson actually walk free someday on his upcoming appeal?

First Prev
of 5
Next Last
trish

San Francisco, CA

#1 Aug 22, 2009
If he should ever be let out, God help us! OH, he does want out...who wouldn't. Yeah, it's all a coincidence that he bought a boat NOBODY knew about, went fishin in SF Bay on Christmas Eve and left his pregnant wife at home, lied and told everyone he was goin golfing, REFUSED a polygraph, then he dyes his hair and BEARD red, then with a carload of thousands in cash, and everything one would need to survive: clothes, water, food, lanterns, shovels, ropes, fake licence, and plenty of VIAGRA tabs. What a jackass he is. People DO NOT have to do these things, if they are innocent! He's a killed is wife AND baby because he couldn't handle the thought of being strapped with a wife and a baby.
What a selfish cowardly thing to do.

He is right where he belongs!
mouse

Boston, MA

#3 Oct 12, 2009
I don't understand who he thinks he's fooling. He's as guilty as Rabbi Neulander back in New Jersey and worse since Luci was Pregnent at the time.

Only his idotic famiily thinks he is really innocent, and one day they will have to admit he is guilty, that day may not be until he's actually been executed, but sooner or later the reality they had a murderer for a son, will sink in. I hope it doesn't kill them, if they are still avlive by then

I actually feel sorry for all who believe he's not guilty. They will wake up one day too.
The fools that send him money, are crazy in my opinon. Why not donate that money to people who are starving or homeless instead of this jerk.
John

Erie, PA

#5 Nov 15, 2009
It was bad enough that OJ Simpson escaped a murder conviction, we don't need this convicted killer to walk, as well. If Scott does indeed win his appeal, karma will one day catch up to him just like it did to OJ last year.
Edward

San Francisco, CA

#6 Dec 3, 2009
The only thing different between OJ and Peterson is OJ was really guilty and a overzealous cop tainted the evidence.

With Scott Peterson the only evidence that proved anything was that he was cheating on his wife Not murder.

Not Guilty!!!
Nancy

Belleville, MI

#7 Dec 4, 2009
Edward wrote:
The only thing different between OJ and Peterson is OJ was really guilty and a overzealous cop tainted the evidence.
With Scott Peterson the only evidence that proved anything was that he was cheating on his wife Not murder.
Not Guilty!!!
Yeah, it was just a silly coincidence that Laci and Conner washed ashore within 2 miles of where Scott was that day....90 Miles from her house, in the same area he was....oh yeah, what a coincidence.

He's as guilty as they come.
betsy

Brooklyn, NY

#9 Mar 30, 2010
Former Cop wrote:
<quoted text> Edward,
I would like to meet with you sometime, because I have a piece of ocean front property in Montana I would like to sell you.
LOL Scott is only coming out in a body bag. Maybe Ed can donate money towards Scott's funeral?(the same fool posts the same moronic rant over and over)...look how far it has gotten them?
betsy

Brooklyn, NY

#10 Mar 30, 2010
Edward wrote:
The only thing different between OJ and Peterson is OJ was really guilty and a overzealous cop tainted the evidence.
With Scott Peterson the only evidence that proved anything was that he was cheating on his wife Not murder.
Not Guilty!!!
Look who didn't follow the trial nor comprehend it if you did. Really sucks being stuck on stupid at all times doesn't it?
Jimbo

Radcliff, KY

#11 May 31, 2010
You could have all the circumstantial evidence in the world to convict somebody, that doesn't mean they did it.

I'm not saying he didn't murder his wife, I'm simply saying there was an almost total lack of direct evidence saying that he did.

And since that's the case, I believe the result of his appeal will make Betsy pretty mad.

There's too many holes sister, prosecutions case never held water.
Bill Poole

Philadelphia, PA

#12 Jun 14, 2010
betsy wrote:
<quoted text>Look who didn't follow the trial nor comprehend it if you did. Really sucks being stuck on stupid at all times doesn't it?
what he's trying to say is there was ZERO evidence proving he killed anybody. all they proved was he's a liar. and given our criminal justice system, if i was being accused of murder, i might go to mexico too... doesn't mean he's guilty... although he probably did it, he should have been found not guilty
lmao

Secaucus, NJ

#13 Jun 19, 2010
Bill Poole wrote:
<quoted text>
what he's trying to say is there was ZERO evidence proving he killed anybody. all they proved was he's a liar. and given our criminal justice system, if i was being accused of murder, i might go to mexico too... doesn't mean he's guilty... although he probably did it, he should have been found not guilty
How embarassingly ignorant you are.
sandsLV

Apex, NC

#14 Jun 25, 2010
Edward wrote:
The only thing different between OJ and Peterson is OJ was really guilty and a overzealous cop tainted the evidence.
With Scott Peterson the only evidence that proved anything was that he was cheating on his wife Not murder.
Not Guilty!!!
Wake up Fool, did you watch the trial??? He is as guilty as they come and his family is a bunch of rejects.... they will all be crying when the needles are put in his veins and he draws his last breath, it's too easy of a death. I could think of much better ways to torture Scotty P!
no money for the murderer

Brooklyn, NY

#15 Aug 5, 2010
Bill Poole wrote:
<quoted text>
what he's trying to say is there was ZERO evidence proving he killed anybody. all they proved was he's a liar. and given our criminal justice system, if i was being accused of murder, i might go to mexico too... doesn't mean he's guilty... although he probably did it, he should have been found not guilty
Hope not everyone in IN is as ignorant as you are. You didn't follow the trial or did you not comprehend it? Sounds like both. Zoooooooooom, over that ignorant head. Oh well.

The double murderer will never walk the streets again. Hopefully he will be excuted soon.
no money for the murderer

Brooklyn, NY

#16 Aug 5, 2010
betsy wrote:
<quoted text>Look who didn't follow the trial nor comprehend it if you did. Really sucks being stuck on stupid at all times doesn't it?
LMAO Good one! The one scott supporter who lives here using different nics just never catches on to reality. Just the kind of loser Scott needs behind him...LMAO Losers flock together.
cheekymarls

Curtin, Australia

#17 Aug 7, 2010
no money for the murderer wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO Good one! The one scott supporter who lives here using different nics just never catches on to reality. Just the kind of loser Scott needs behind him...LMAO Losers flock together.
I followed the cause from Australia every inch and to this day I am yet to understand how a pregnant woman of 8 months, this being December, baby due Debruary - yet the fetus (connor - angel) was intact 2 months after his due date when they were found in April. I am not saying he did or didn't do it but without a doubt? I have doubts. There is doubt. To give someone death based on photos of connor is not proof. Its proof he died, not proof he did it.

I know you will respond that he was in mother womb and protected - this would be the only case in history where this has happened. Once the mother bodily function die, the fetus would decompose at a fast rate. I still cant find the answer to the Dec to April fetal timeline. This is a whole 4 months which supposedly laci and connor were dead. 4 months to a dead fetus is a very long time. I think medically speaking Connor would have been in worse condition had he died on Dec 24.
Even if you argue that the fetus was protected in the womb and released from the womb close to the time they were found. The water and conditions alone would have separated poor connor body the minute his body was exposed to the elements. To make it how far?? and then go over rocks and land on ground and still be whole. FOUR MONTH DEC TO APRIL AND FLOATING EXPOSED TO THE ELEMENTS _ DOES NOT MAKE SENSE AND BUGS ME TO THIS DAY!
Guilty or not guilty - He may have done it but with reasonable doubt to get death row. I don't think so.
stars and stripes

Milton, KY

#18 Aug 16, 2010
I agree with you, and I don't understand how they could have convicted Scott Peterson on this evidence alone. I too followed the case. I too feel that he didn't kill Laci. I too believe he is a cheating, lying husband, but that doesn't make him a murderer. If it did, there would be alot of murderers. I think that everyone got caught up in all the bad news reporting and bashing and couldn't get past that to even comprehend that he was being railroaded. I don't think that the police did there best in this case. They had hime guilty from day one and didn't follow any other clues. I hope that the real truth comes out and that justice will be served to Laci, Connor, Scott, and the families involved.
cheekymarls wrote:
<quoted text>
I followed the cause from Australia every inch and to this day I am yet to understand how a pregnant woman of 8 months, this being December, baby due Debruary - yet the fetus (connor - angel) was intact 2 months after his due date when they were found in April. I am not saying he did or didn't do it but without a doubt? I have doubts. There is doubt. To give someone death based on photos of connor is not proof. Its proof he died, not proof he did it.
I know you will respond that he was in mother womb and protected - this would be the only case in history where this has happened. Once the mother bodily function die, the fetus would decompose at a fast rate. I still cant find the answer to the Dec to April fetal timeline. This is a whole 4 months which supposedly laci and connor were dead. 4 months to a dead fetus is a very long time. I think medically speaking Connor would have been in worse condition had he died on Dec 24.
Even if you argue that the fetus was protected in the womb and released from the womb close to the time they were found. The water and conditions alone would have separated poor connor body the minute his body was exposed to the elements. To make it how far?? and then go over rocks and land on ground and still be whole. FOUR MONTH DEC TO APRIL AND FLOATING EXPOSED TO THE ELEMENTS _ DOES NOT MAKE SENSE AND BUGS ME TO THIS DAY!
Guilty or not guilty - He may have done it but with reasonable doubt to get death row. I don't think so.
RANDY

AOL

#19 Aug 28, 2010
I believe he is innocent also- totally circumstancial case- no solid evidence at all. Oh- you say where the bodies washed up is the clincher- thats also what a juror said- The way i see it is this- the cops told the whole world where he was fishing and anyone could have easily dumped the bodies there. Also- why couldnt they find them in the bay- with all sort of moderm equipment searching in fairly shallow water. hmmmmmm And it seems a little wierd that after 4 months the bodies appear at the same time? Odds of that happening naturally must be very small. Combine that with all other lack of evidence and his totally non violent history- doesnt add up for me
cheekymarls

Curtin, Australia

#20 Aug 29, 2010
RANDY wrote:
I believe he is innocent also- totally circumstancial case- no solid evidence at all. Oh- you say where the bodies washed up is the clincher- thats also what a juror said- The way i see it is this- the cops told the whole world where he was fishing and anyone could have easily dumped the bodies there. Also- why couldnt they find them in the bay- with all sort of moderm equipment searching in fairly shallow water. hmmmmmm And it seems a little wierd that after 4 months the bodies appear at the same time? Odds of that happening naturally must be very small. Combine that with all other lack of evidence and his totally non violent history- doesnt add up for me
more importantly its the condition of connor body, holds the key, fetal decomposition experts SHOULD have been called in
conner condition is too unrealistic for the condition of the bay
OMG

Zion, IL

#21 Sep 8, 2010
Edward wrote:
The only thing different between OJ and Peterson is OJ was really guilty and a overzealous cop tainted the evidence.
With Scott Peterson the only evidence that proved anything was that he was cheating on his wife Not murder.
Not Guilty!!!
I love it when convicted murderers supporters spew the old familiar song....... he may be a cheater and a liar and a ....blah blah blah, but he is not a murderer...... oh please, give it a rest.

Character, it is what you do when you think no one is looking. It also speaks volumes when the so called innocent person does not choose to speak up for themselves, example: Casey Anthony case. IF and that is a big IF, he/she was actually innocent, why then do they not speak up? Scared? of what? The truth coming out? Seems to me an innocent person would be screaming their innocence at the top of their lungs instead of carrying on an affair, dying of the hair, packing supplies for a long camping trip, etc.,.
More ridiculousness.

May Laci & Conner rest in peace.
Becca

Bristol, RI

#22 Sep 28, 2010
I am part of an informal group that (still) comes together occasionally to discuss the Peterson case. In this group is a mixture of people. Some think he is innocent, some not, and others are unsure. I will say this: Very few things have gotten me as angry as the Peterson trial has. I have followed the trial very closely (as closely as possible given the lack of cameras allowed in the court room). I haven't the foggiest clue as to whether or not Scott committed this crime but, I do know without doubt that according to law he should have walked out of that courtroom a free man.

Ponder a couple of things if you will:

1) Baby Conner had a small piece of black electrical tape stuck to his head that mysteriously disappeared following the autopsy. It has been said that the tape was in fact kelp or marine matter. Photographs of the remains showing the clean lines of tape gives the distinct impression of man made edges and therefore rules out the latter. The prosecutions witness contends that Baby Conner was born a coffin birth. A process that happens when the gasses due to decomposition force the baby through the birth canal after death, or in Laci's case, an opening that had worn through the top of the uterus, again due to decomposition. This would mean that this baby went from amniotic fluid to the ocean. How would the tape have stuck?

2) Baby Conner also had a piece of twine used both in construction and fishing looped under one arm and around his neck. This twine was tied in a knot then in a bow. During autopsy Dr. Peterson (no relation) had to cut the twine away as it would not fit over the baby's head to be lifted off. The prosecution contends that this happened under water as the remains were floating. Keep in mind that Conner's remains showed very little signs of animal feeding or barnacle growth (as his mother had) leaving the ME to estimate the child had been in a marine environment "a couple of days" though his body washed up 4 months after his mother disappeared.

3) Baby Conner's remains were described as being mushy and gelatinous at trial (to which I have the transcripts in their entirety if anyone is interested), yet the prosecution wants us to believe that the remains washed over a rock jetty leaving the gelatinous remains intact. Through the gaps in the rocks and the baby would have been ripped to shreds, over the rocks via a large wave would have certainly splattered the poor angel.(not to be crude but picture Jell-O...). Adding to the fact that 4 months after their disappearance, we are to believe that they washed up within a day of one another within a mile of one another showing marked differences in their individual decomposition.

4) Despite a multi-million dollar investigation using the best of everything, 7 different 'crime scenes', thousands of man hours dispersed to hundreds of officers (including the FBI), sonar, scenting dogs, cadaver dogs (trained to sniff the scent of death that emits from a person within 15 minutes following death), phone taps, etc.(Oh yes the list does go on) the prosecution failed to find one single shred of evidence to convict Scott Peterson.

5) The home directly across from the Peterson residence was robbed ( a safe was taken among other things) on the exact day of Laci's disappearance. A young man later incarcerated for the burglary placed a call to his brother from prison and in a recorded conversation said that Laci had interrupted the burglary and they had threatened her life and nothing more. A lead DT. in the case Craig Grogan responded to the prison and the tape disappeared. The prosecution blew up the safe (see above) "accidentally" a day before the defense was to test the safe using their own professionals as part of 'discovery'.

This is just the tip of the iceburg... Dont take my word for it. Really look into it with an open mind from a neutral source.

Enjoy your day.
cheekymarls

Greenway, Australia

#23 Sep 29, 2010
Hi Becca
you raise 5 good points and there is more, as you said tip of the ice berg. there was reasonable doubt and regardless of whether he did or not do this, there was doubt!
what is the website you and others chat about this informally?
I so agree with you about connors body, I have spoken to a few coroners and a fetal decomposition expert here in australia years ago and he was intrigued that connor body was still intact over rocks etc...this would have to be the only case in history where a fetus was washed up ashore four months later and be in the condition he is in. this has NEVER happened before. the decomp guy said, it is the population total to one in the odds of this happening meaning zil chance
they came to a verdict of death by being shown the photos of connor and laci, not the case itself

and in all seriousness, scott was too daft to even be that clever to hide all evidence

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 5
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Scott Peterson Trial Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Laci's mom outraged over Scott Peterson's blog (Jul '08) Aug 19 Gregory Orme 3,069
on line petition to free scott peterson (Oct '07) Aug 15 Spotted Wee 268
Scott and Richelle Nice Are Penpals??? (Jan '07) Aug 15 Spotted Wee 22
News Do you think Scott Peterson got a fair trial? (Jul '12) Aug 8 RiccardoFire 84
News Scott Peterson Applauds Sharon Rocha Over Her N... (Mar '08) Apr '17 Margot55 35
News Suit: Amber Frey broke deal on 'sex addict' book (Mar '11) Dec '15 Derp 4
Who is a sociopath? (Apr '06) Nov '15 Lola 22
More from around the web