I never followed this case except for watching a documentary. I am not sure, but I think it may have been on Netflix. I agree with your thinking on this. Why deny further testing if you are 200% certain that Scott is guilty. The same applies for Brendan Dassey and Steven Avery.
I agree. The police stated the robbery happened on a totally different day. Even the most stupid people wouldn't rob a house with film crews sitting outside.
The witnesses who allegedly saw her walking her dog after the reported time that Scott left her all described the clothes she was wearing in the missing posters put up after her disappearance. She was then later pulled from the Bay and she was not in fact wearing those same clothes. They saw what they wanted to see. Plus a $ sign with multiple zeroes.
I used to whole heartedly believe he did it. Some people whose judgement I trust did some work regarding jury selection. They believe in his innocence. They reference the loading of her body onto the boat. They maintain that it would have been physically impossible to do what the prosecution said. Every now and again they bring it up as an example to something else. They have no doubt of his innocence. I have felt the same about another high profile case, because the suspect acted so suspicious. He was not convicted, I can’t remember if he was ever even tried. But based on his extremely sum suspicious behavior I thought he was guilty. He had not killed her, he was hiding other things that did come out in the investigation. Her murder was solved a few years ago, well after it occurred. It turned out to be some rando. His DNA from another crime pop up a match with her case. The victim was Chandra Levy, and the world suspected former Rep. Gary Condit.
That stunt with the boat on the A&E documentary about Scott is what I'm assuming you're referencing, and it was just that. It took them multiple attempts to get that boat to tip, but that's what they needed for their pro-innocence film. Then they'd leave out parts like when he bought it, he made sure that he prioritized it having a depth finder. He asked the guy he bought it from multiple times because he really wanted one for "fishing". The same guy who went "fishing" and never opened his gear. And as for Levy, the police were already aware of Condit's lack of involvement and then the actual killer Guandique's involvement as early as September of 2001. The same year she was murdered, just months later. They didn't have enough evidence at the time to prosecute, though. When they did he was subsequently arrested in 2009 and then went on trial in 2010. But man if that's only a few years ago to you, time must be moving awfully fast lol
Why not let the innocent project test everything if the state really truly believed Scott is so guilty then you have nothing to hide I feel the like state hiding something if they wouldn’t give the innocent project everything to test
Because just like the Avery case, you have to follow the correct procedures, and there must be valid reasons to think that something new could be discovered from the testing. Otherwise, every single convict in prison will be wasting the justice systems time examining evidence over and over just in the hopes they make a mistake during testing and get set free on a technicality.
I think I can explain some of it. If ANY of the new evidence is different than original, it allows for a retrial, or in some cases a case being thrown out and not allowed to be retried even if it comes back to him. The law is all about for lawyers, by lawyers, to lawyers. It does not make right or sense. We the masses have one definition of Justice, to others it is a category of legislation. I am not a lawyer, but I know there are exceptions, and state rules apply. At the end of the day any legit proof can be thrown out as non-applicable, based on lawyer, defense, and court negotiation. No side plays fair, except the losing one.
I believe Scott most likely did murder his wife but will say that there was a strong lack of any hard forensic evidence outside of circumstantial evidence brought before the court, I agree that if there is a question as to his guilt testing will only be incriminating or exculpatory as it would for Avery or Brendan. Unfortunately the State is very reluctant to just grant those incarcerated a new trial.
I feel his guilty… however if he is innocent, I hope they can prove it. It’s really sad how many innocent people sit in prison for crimes they didn’t commit of course look at Steven Avery and Brendan Dassey but there are a lot more people in prison that are innocent. it’s sad how many years it takes to be able to prove and free people. And I want a lot of documentaries and it’s great that DNA has been a great help over the past. I don’t know 20 years or so but a lot these cold cases they’re still trying to solve from 30-40 years ago and too many times innocent people are in prison. But yeah, from what I have seen on this case, and a lot has to do his behavior after… I feel like he’s guilty.
I truly believe the innocent project took his case because they needed money to fight for real innocent people. I think they are just using him for the money and the publicity..
🙄🙄 I garentee you Scott Peterson is handing them boat loads of money to take his case.. even if it's just in "donations " and yes they are getting quiet of bit of publicity from it..
Well, he’s indigent so probably not. This case isn’t exactly bringing in great publicity for the LAIP, so this is a strange and nonsensical accusation, frankly.
Im about to not beleive in innocent project ever again…..because Avery has not been to rest..
Yeah, I followed it very closely at the time and developed a similar conclusion. However, I'm always open to further evidence on any case.
I never followed this case except for watching a documentary. I am not sure, but I think it may have been on Netflix. I agree with your thinking on this. Why deny further testing if you are 200% certain that Scott is guilty. The same applies for Brendan Dassey and Steven Avery.
"I never followed this case except for watching a documentary". Yep lol That sounds about right.
You should go through the cris watts case, ans give your opinions .. id love to know what you think
I’ve always thought he was innocent. Lacy was seen walking her dog & alive. Trial by media & his pathological lying & cheating did him in.
I agree. The police stated the robbery happened on a totally different day. Even the most stupid people wouldn't rob a house with film crews sitting outside.
The witnesses who allegedly saw her walking her dog after the reported time that Scott left her all described the clothes she was wearing in the missing posters put up after her disappearance. She was then later pulled from the Bay and she was not in fact wearing those same clothes. They saw what they wanted to see. Plus a $ sign with multiple zeroes.
And the fact that he dyed his hair and planned to escape and rang his mistress repeatedly due the search rallies for his wife 🤔😆
@@petalblossom96He was a cheater. That sucks. But not a killer.
@@RavensFanJYou never like the witnesses that go against your opinion/narrative.
I used to whole heartedly believe he did it. Some people whose judgement I trust did some work regarding jury selection. They believe in his innocence. They reference the loading of her body onto the boat. They maintain that it would have been physically impossible to do what the prosecution said. Every now and again they bring it up as an example to something else. They have no doubt of his innocence. I have felt the same about another high profile case, because the suspect acted so suspicious. He was not convicted, I can’t remember if he was ever even tried. But based on his extremely sum suspicious behavior I thought he was guilty. He had not killed her, he was hiding other things that did come out in the investigation. Her murder was solved a few years ago, well after it occurred. It turned out to be some rando. His DNA from another crime pop up a match with her case. The victim was Chandra Levy, and the world suspected former Rep. Gary Condit.
That stunt with the boat on the A&E documentary about Scott is what I'm assuming you're referencing, and it was just that. It took them multiple attempts to get that boat to tip, but that's what they needed for their pro-innocence film. Then they'd leave out parts like when he bought it, he made sure that he prioritized it having a depth finder. He asked the guy he bought it from multiple times because he really wanted one for "fishing". The same guy who went "fishing" and never opened his gear.
And as for Levy, the police were already aware of Condit's lack of involvement and then the actual killer Guandique's involvement as early as September of 2001. The same year she was murdered, just months later. They didn't have enough evidence at the time to prosecute, though. When they did he was subsequently arrested in 2009 and then went on trial in 2010. But man if that's only a few years ago to you, time must be moving awfully fast lol
Why not let the innocent project test everything if the state really truly believed Scott is so guilty then you have nothing to hide I feel the like state hiding something if they wouldn’t give the innocent project everything to test
Because just like the Avery case, you have to follow the correct procedures, and there must be valid reasons to think that something new could be discovered from the testing. Otherwise, every single convict in prison will be wasting the justice systems time examining evidence over and over just in the hopes they make a mistake during testing and get set free on a technicality.
Maybe it was Drew Peterson, before he murdered Stacey
I think I can explain some of it. If ANY of the new evidence is different than original, it allows for a retrial, or in some cases a case being thrown out and not allowed to be retried even if it comes back to him. The law is all about for lawyers, by lawyers, to lawyers. It does not make right or sense. We the masses have one definition of Justice, to others it is a category of legislation.
I am not a lawyer, but I know there are exceptions, and state rules apply. At the end of the day any legit proof can be thrown out as non-applicable, based on lawyer, defense, and court negotiation. No side plays fair, except the losing one.
Thanks for the post. I appreciate your explanation. I’m not an attorney so it’s all gibberish.
Thanks!
Thank you!
He did it. Period.
I believe Scott most likely did murder his wife but will say that there was a strong lack of any hard forensic evidence outside of circumstantial evidence brought before the court, I agree that if there is a question as to his guilt testing will only be incriminating or exculpatory as it would for Avery or Brendan. Unfortunately the State is very reluctant to just grant those incarcerated a new trial.
Nothing makes senses….but yes so many things proven he killed and ran……narcissistic he is with poor Amber…..nope he is guilty
I feel his guilty… however if he is innocent, I hope they can prove it. It’s really sad how many innocent people sit in prison for crimes they didn’t commit of course look at Steven Avery and Brendan Dassey but there are a lot more people in prison that are innocent. it’s sad how many years it takes to be able to prove and free people. And I want a lot of documentaries and it’s great that DNA has been a great help over the past. I don’t know 20 years or so but a lot these cold cases they’re still trying to solve from 30-40 years ago and too many times innocent people are in prison. But yeah, from what I have seen on this case, and a lot has to do his behavior after… I feel like he’s guilty.
What a waste of money.. he is guilty..
I truly believe the innocent project took his case because they needed money to fight for real innocent people. I think they are just using him for the money and the publicity..
Oh yeah, because they’re definitely getting great publicity by defending Scott Peterson. 🤣
🙄🙄 I garentee you Scott Peterson is handing them boat loads of money to take his case.. even if it's just in "donations " and yes they are getting quiet of bit of publicity from it..
Well, he’s indigent so probably not.
This case isn’t exactly bringing in great publicity for the LAIP, so this is a strange and nonsensical accusation, frankly.
@@brennanhuff2960 you think Scott Peterson is broke??? Okkk .. you believe what you want to ..
@@MrStardust7502 Yeah, he’s broke.
I beleive he is guilty…..
He acted funny but I don’t think he killed Laci
Sorry but he's guilty. Nope.