It's all the things Scott did: ordered porn while they were searching for Laci, selling lacis vehicle, turning the nursery into a storage room, telling Amber he's in France when he's at a vigil for Laci, lacis body turning up right where Scott went fishing in a boat no one knew he bought, telling Amber he lost his wife before she was lost, that solidifies Scott's guilt.
Just a thought, but could he have thought his wife found out about the affair and left. Maybe hoping he would follow her. I don't know, but people do all sorts of stupid things. A friend of mine left her family for a couple of weeks and didn't tell anyone where she was. Her husband called the cops after 3 days, no one thought she was dead or anything. But it was allot of drama. I don't know anything about these 2 people, so I can't say what either of them would be capable of. Just a thought.
@Paul Avery Laci knew about it. GERAGOS: Detective, she specifically told you that Ron, that Laci did not like Ron Grantski, as she called him, said Sharon's boyfriend, correct? GROGAN: That's what she said. GERAGOS: She said Laci doesn't like him. She didn't want her mother or he to know about the affair at all. Isn't that what she told you? GROGAN: That's what she told me. GERAGOS: She said that, said Laci was very adamant about that. That's why he protected that, instead of being up front and that kind of thing; is that correct? GROGAN: That's what she said. GERAGOS: She said that Scott said that Laci was extremely, or very pissed off. That's what he told her, right? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And that the, and they were going to get through it, but that she was, Laci was upset, right? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And she said that Scott said that Laci had insisted they not tell the parents about it, correct? GROGAN: Yes, that's what Ann said. GERAGOS: And you said that Laci was pissed off, but they had been through it before, correct? And said her answer was, right, she was not happy. But he said, you know, they talked it over, you know. They were going to, going to get through it. They were looking forward to Conner being born. She went on. It was kind of putting it on the back burner; is that correct? GROGAN: Yes, that's what she said. GERAGOS: Then you specifically asked, I'm at 36929, about the fact of what else Scott talked about, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And you were, and this was an investigative technique that you used with a lot of witnesses. Have you talked to Scott Peterson? What did he say? How did he look, correct? Did this with a lot of his friends. For instance, Aaron Fritz, Mike Richardson, Greg Reed. That was something that both you and Detective Brocchini were doing, correct? GROGAN: All those people were interviewed. And I think I have talked to some of them myself, yes. GERAGOS: Some of them have been talked to by other of the Core Detectives in the group, correct? GROGAN: Correct. GERAGOS: And when you asked her about what else he talked about. She said he just keeps hoping and praying that she's, that she'll appear. That she said, I did know he sold Laci's car because the locks didn't work on it. He said when the police went through the car, through her car, the locks were damaged. And he wanted, I think, Brent to bring the car back, or have it fixed, or something. That what they told you? GROGAN: That's what they told me. GERAGOS: She said that he said, that Laci called the car a piece of shit, and hated the car, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And she actually wanted the same car that Ann has; is that correct? Is that right? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And she said that they had been shopping around for a different car, and that he needed to turn that car in for those reasons; and, also, because he needed a truck, and he had asked several times to get his truck back, and he couldn't get it back, right? GROGAN: Correct. GERAGOS: Okay. And you know that at that point you still had the truck, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Now, you also had an interview with Sharon Rocha and Ron Grantski on December 29th of 2002, correct? I'm looking at 2212 Bates stamp. FLADAGER: 2212? GROGAN: Yes, I did. GERAGOS: During that interview with Sharon Rocha and Ron Grantski you learned, and you talked to two, just the two of them, right? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And you learned then that Laci did want a larger home and a new vehicle, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: In fact, I had asked you about this on Thursday, one of the tips you received on the tip line in May was from a real estate broker in San Luis Obispo; is that correct? GROGAN: This is a tip? This is May, 2003. GERAGOS: Tip came in in May, 2003, about something that occurred back in May of 2002, correct? GROGAN: Yes. This is a tip that is written in a report by Detective Brocchini. GERAGOS: Okay. I'm asking, did this tip involve a real estate broker from San Luis Obispo who specifically had had conversations with Laci Peterson in May of 2002? GROGAN: I'm not familiar with that. GERAGOS: With this report? FLADAGER: Do you have a Bates stamp, Mr. Geragos? GERAGOS: Bates stamp is 22363. GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: 369. I'm sorry. Were you aware of the fact that Laci had been calling a broker in San Luis Obispo about relocating there? GROGAN: If I was told that, I don't remember it right now. GERAGOS: You know there has been testimony in this case, and I believe specifically some of the, in some of the reports about Scott selling the car. Didn't you also call Sharon Rocha and tell her when the car was sold? GROGAN: Yes, I did. GERAGOS: Okay. Didn't she tell you at the time that the car had no sentimental value to her? GROGAN: I don't recall if she said that or not. GERAGOS: Okay. I'll find a report at the break. I'll show it to you this afternoon. When you were talking to Ann Bird, specifically in that same tape recorded interview, you talked about Amber, correct? Look at 36930. GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And she said that Scott admitted that he had screwed up and that he had made a huge mistake, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And, specifically, you also asked why it was that, you were asking about the fact that he had an attorney; is that correct? Scott had an attorney? FLADAGER: Do you have the Bates stamp? GERAGOS: 36932. At the top of the page you are asking, I think Jackie, I'm sorry, Bird, Ann Bird's asking, I think Jackie said that a policeman told her they should get an attorney. She was completely alarmed; is that right? GROGAN: That's what Ann said. GERAGOS: You said you didn't know about that. You certainly didn't tell them you needed an attorney. Then she said, yeah, I think Jackie said they were alarmed and so they hired an attorney. Jackie and Lee did, correct? GROGAN: That's what Ann said, yes. GERAGOS: And there was talk about who the lawyer was, correct? GROGAN: Correct. GERAGOS: Okay. And then you specifically started talking to her about what the media had done; is that correct? Bottom of the page. GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. I did find the portion, Bates number 395, about when you phoned Sharon and said that Scott had sold the Land Rover, where it was located. Sharon told you that the vehicle did not have sentimental value to her, correct? GROGAN: Yes. That particular item did not. GERAGOS: The car did not have sentimental value? GROGAN: Correct. GERAGOS: That was, if I understand correctly, when Miss Fladager had asked you about you brokering some of the belongings back and forth. That was that same conversation, correct? GROGAN: I think so, yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And she said that there was, Sharon said the vehicle didn't have any sentimental value, but she wanted the baby's belongings, the crib, Laci's photographs, two Tiffany lamps, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And that was on, some time on January 31st? GROGAN: I believe that's accurate. GERAGOS: And so that's when you called up, I believe Miss Fladager asked you. You called up Scott; is that correct? And I'm looking at what's got 334. You received an e-mail which had been forwarded to you from Sharon, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And Sharon had asked that she wanted the photographs of Laci as well as some Tiffany lamps and some items from the nursery, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And in that e-mail, Scott, it was apparently an e-mail between Sharon and Scott, right, that had been forwarded to you? GROGAN: I don't know. Is it attached there? GERAGOS: I don't think that it was. But maybe it is. Let's see if it's the next page. Is that it? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And specifically on this e-mail that was forwarded to you, Scott apologizes. Says, I have never taken the opportunity to apologize, addressed to mom, correct? GROGAN: Correct. GERAGOS: "I have never taken the opportunity to apologize to Ron or yourself for lying to you about my infidelity to Laci," correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: "I'm truly sorry I was not forthcoming with you immediately. I know both of our goals is to find Laci and Conner. I'm hoping together we can do that more than separate." Correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: And then the last paragraph, "I receive
He's going to carry on a relationship with Amber, yet he's already told her he lost his wife. So given that, how does Scott eventually explain to Amber "oh yeah, by the way, the wife I Said I lost, it was just Christmas Eve that she went missing, oh and she was pregnant. You still good to go Amber?" It was a fling. Why do you think he told Amber he was going to be away for the holidays. Because he knew he would be with his family. That's why! December 19 Amber runs into the estranged wife of Dave Giardanelli-a woman that, according to Giardanelli, had died of a heart condition. He didn't turn Conner's room into a storage room. January 13, 2003, Scott gave notice to the landlord for the Tradecorp warehouse. Scott indicated in his Notice to Vacate that he would be out of the warehouse by February 12. Scott made arrangements for the Tradecorp product to be warehoused at a distribution center and he rented a storage unit on January 27 to store all the office equipment, furniture and some personal items from the warehouse. Three chairs from Scott’s office have been rolled into the nursery, and on top of the rocking chair is the red and blue bedding from the second bedroom. Scott brought the items home from the warehouse that did not fit in the storage unit. just like other items from the warehouse that didn't fit into the storage unit were brought home and store in different areas of the home.
Lacy Peterson's mother Sharon Rocha was the most sympathetic victim I've ever seen. I'll never forget her screaming into the microphone saying "They didn't deserve to be thrown away as if their lives had meant nothing!"- Broke my heart.
Yes, she was so excited to be a grandmother and I was devastated for her that Scott took that away from her. I don't care whether Scott hated Laci or not, he had no right to hurt Sharon Rocha like this.
@@PPLL463 Yes some of them were. Innocent people get convicted. That is a fact. A jury of your peers means impartial. Innocent until proven guilty. RICHELLE NICE (1) denied ever participating in a lawsuit, (2) denied ever testifying as a witness and 3) denied ever being the victim of a crime. In November of 2000 when she 4 1/2 months pregnant, she swore under oath that "acts of violence" were committed against her to "fear for her unborn child". In Nov 2001 when she was pregnant with a different child, acts of domestic violence including battery and cruelty to a child were committed against her and her young child by her boyfriend who pled no contest to criminal charges. Greg Beratlis signed a declaration quoting RN regarding her statements about getting Scott for what he did to Laci and "little man" (Conner) Steve Cardosi another juror signed a declaration for the habeas stating Richelle spoke to jurors about the woman who had been harassing her. She wrote Scott over two dozen letters to Scott while he was in prison. She was willing to forgo months of pay to serve the jury even though her employer could only pay two weeks.
I don’t know: who has a missing wife and trades in her car before knowing if she’s dead or not? Who whistles a “whew” when their mother-in-law says no body was found in the bay search? Who changes their hair color, gathers money, etc and heads to the border? Who has a map to the mistress and a burying kit in the back of the car? Who buys a little boat and keeps it secret? Who makes anchors that go missing? Who tells father in law he went golfing then changes story to fishing. Who has a dead wife and baby pop up exactly where he said he was? What father tells someone he was hoping for infertility. Who talks to his mistress at a gathering for his missing wife. Here’s your real motive: he did not want to be a husband and father. He did this. One of the leading causes of death for pregnant women in America? Murder. This is one of those cases. The fact he hadn’t done violence before is not a good argument. That can be said of many. Chris Watts comes to mind at the moment.
I love what you wrote. I agree with you 100% until you get to motive. I have just started looking into the case and was shocked to see Scott’s salary. I am not trying to be a jerk, but I live in a modest house in Metro Atlanta and don’t have any of the things he had, but my family’s salary is 3X his and Lacie’s. He was also going to get fired. He was not a great sales person. The company was going under and didn’t have the capital to continue. Lacie had financial windfalls that supported the family (one from a beloved grandmother who left Lacie over $100k). I believe that not wanting Lacie and getting control of her money was the motivation. If she had no money he may not have been motivated enough. Regards.
Yea, don't forget testimony that Laci stopped going for walks because she was too pregnant. Scott would rather be on death row than change a diaper, bottom line.
Joan Marie Never watch TMZ. By the way, it is “you’re” not “your.” I followed the case very closely. I have my information directly from the parents of Lacey and the detectives who worked the case. They are featured on a very reputable documentary. What wires do I have crossed, specifically.
The guy didn't have a boat and didn't fish before. He buys a boat, goes boating FOR THE FIRST TIME the morning his wife disappears, and then his wife's body is found in the same body of water where he went boating. What are the odds? Please, instead of getting bogged down with the details of the trial, look at the big picture with some good old common sense.
We’re there any witnesses of Scott transporting a large body like figure or hiding a figure like that in his boat? No. In fact there’s multiple witnesses seeing Scott at the dock and reported he had no abnormal behavior at all. So it seems like Scott was able to transport this body on to his boat in broad daylight with 0 eye witnesses seeing a body like figure in his boat or transporting it?
@@RiceBowl510 There were no witnesses seeing Chris Watts kill his family either. Usually murderers hide the bodies of their victims, it's not like they're going to be showing off their trophies. A body on the bottom of the boat, covered by a piece of tarp would not be visible from probably ten yards away.
@@LaVidayElTristeFinal Ok valid arguemnet, but does it make any sense that Scott is going to kill his wife at 9:30am, then by 9:48am already have her body wrapped in a tarp and in his truck in the span of 18 minutes, then proceed to stop at his warehouse where he “sent chrismas greeting to his boss and looked up instructions on how to assemble a wood working tool he just got in the mail with his dead wife in his truck? Scott doesn’t seem like a calculated cold blooded killer. He is the opposite, a man with a credited degree from Cal Poly and a social, well liked person who is soft spoken. There is no history of rage or anger in his life which points to the opposite of his alleged behavior. Sure he was a cheater and womanizer, but for the media to grab upon these behaviors and crucify him for it is unjust.
@@LaVidayElTristeFinal also, although Chris watts and Scott’s cases are similar, Chris killed his wife and kids in the early hours of the day and drove out to the oil tanks far before sunrise. Scott was beleive to kill his wife in his home then transport her body in broad daylight. Although he’s not showing it off like a trophy, you still have to take out a 150 pound body and transport it into a boat in broad daylight, then drive past all the other boat docks with other ppl. There are witnesses stating that they didn’t see any tarps or large figures in Scotts boat while at the dock
@@RiceBowl510: The guy had already told his mistress, days earlier, that he had lost his wife. And then he loses her for real. You can question individual pieces of the puzzle. But when you put them together, a very clear image emerges. And again, what are the odds that the body of his wife will be floating in the very same place where he went boating?
5 лет назад+329
If I don't know where my husband is and i call his relatives, i ask if they've seen him. I don't say he's missing. There was no reason to think she was missing.
Thank you. If I had been away from my husband and kids 12 hours and came home to them gone, my first thought would be that they are visiting family not missing. He also didn’t call her to ask where she was. All of his behavior and the evidence points to Scott. If he’s innocent he is the most unlucky man by a lot.
@Susan Fudge.. And Scott didn't even call the police to report her "missing". He called her parents and THEY reported it. That's another reason the police were suspicious of him from the start. Then he called his girlfriend Amber Frey on New Years Eve a few days later and told her that he was in Paris watching a wonderful fireworks show when actually he was at a candlelight vigil for his missing wife. I believe he is an "evil" man, if there is such a thing, or at least a narcissistic sociopath/ psychopath---he and Chris Watts could be brothers. They are both narcissistic and they both have sociopathic behavior.
Kasia yes not everybody that intimates that their wife died, also not everybody who purchases a boat the day after saying that or the same day, not everybody’s wife lands up dead in the same place as where the boat landed up, not everybody reacts the way he did, not everybody etc etc no single piece of evidence is overwhelming but the accumulation thereof - he did it
A coincidence is something that's not planned or arranged but seems like it is. Technically, a coincidence is an occurrence of events that happen at the same time by total accident..... So what? It might literally just be a coincidence. I mean the death sentence is a HELL of a deal if it were merely a coincidence. COINCIDENCES do occur, that's why there's a name for it. If that's all it takes to convict and sentence to death, people should have their heads examined. I personally think most people are lacking in intelligence to be a part of juror duty. Their not smart enough to understand reasonable doubt. So many times there have been cases that should have been NOT GUILTY via reasonable doubt. Doesn't mean he didn't do it. But we should be able to prove it more than an affair, an a coincidence, and a feeling. But that's people, authority says he did it, so he did it. Especially if it's a young woman. Rarely will someone be acquitted of a charge of murder when it's a young attractive woman. Even with pathetic evidence.
@Winnie the Wine Mom so why dont you chang your jurstic system which cleary show that it does not work ??? and the thing that i dont understand has an outsider is this why in hell is Casey Anthony and oj simpson and many others like them with stronge evidence against them are set free and Scoot petterson with out a single shreed of evdince zero evidence is sitting in death row ??? why does the american system give the power to convict a person or let him free to a punch of jurors like strawberry shortcake who don't know nothing about law or evidence and only listen to the media like opra and Nancy Grace and the view because your a lazzy nation
Scott called Amber during Laci's candelight vigil, and told her that he was celebrating New Year's Eve in Paris during a business trip. He did this while standing next to Laci's family desperately searching and hoping for Laci and Connor. Amber dodged a bullet. She would have been Scott's next victim in one way or another.
@@joan6984 there is video of him on the phone during the vigil. The calls were recorded bc the cops already had Amber Frey helping them. Amber knows he is in Modesto but he tells her he is at the Eiffel tower and the crowd is huge, everyone is dancing to American pop music, and he is having trouble hearing her so he will have to call her back later on her new year (midnight). He had his head down and moved away from all the people who came out to attend HIS WIFE'S VIGIL. It is v cringeworthy. The call was entered into evidence and the video, transcripts and recordings are easily found online. So sad.
@@miaknig3130 Mia losing. This is totally disgusting that he was ignoring Lacies gathering…..he must have some serious mental problem including his high sex drive. He acts like a guilty guy I realize this but apart from that there is too much evidence convincing me that she was kidnapped well after he left the house. Yes, he acts like a guilty jerk this is an immense problem but there is way too much proof that she was kidnapped after he left. There can be two diffrent situations and I think this is the situation.
@@joan6984 you were not sure if the calls were true, one of the most well known parts of the case. Maybe you don't know about other proven evidence. His own words and actions lauded him where he belongs.
I got a call from work that my much beloved Mom had unexpectedly passed away. I went to her house and the caretaker and police were there. Caretaker was like family and she was upset because they questioned her. The Sargent took me aside and said they questioned her because she was crying and sometimes if someone does wrong they cry from feelings of guilt. Interesting how emotions can thus not be used as facts for evidence- as they vary too much. Meanwhile, I didn't cry at first. I was numb 💔
Todd said the Police's job is to collect evidence and find the truth. I think cops are sometimes more interested in getting a conviction than finding the truth. This is probably doubly true when a case gets lots of media attention.
I’m introverted and it takes time to process things for me. It would all be a matter of circumstances on reactions like if my kids were in the room, was I alone, am I speaking to professionals like police, etc etc. I disagree with the whole police being able to make assumptions based on reactions or people being “nervous” around police. I think anyone would be, especially in an already heightened emotional state.
Also, Valia I am so sorry for your loss! My mom passed away almost 11 years ago at just 54 years old and there are still days I cry missing her, especially now that I live 5 minutes from where she lived since we were away for 18 years until my ex left me so I no longer was living the military life with him moving around wherever the Air Force sent us.
What got me was when Scott called his mistress FROM Lacie's candlelight vigil. Also, a bunch of searchers were putting up missing flyers, but when Scott opened his trunk, with his friend or somebody near him, they noticed the huge pile of missing flyers. Scott had not put any of the flyers up.
@@sophie8394You're usually the person's spelling I'm correcting VideoFanatic02. Remember when you said this to me lol. ---"For the way I'm using the word, whose or whoes is acceptable. Look it up. You might learn something Lol! Anyone can look it up and see for themselves it is a word. You just keep making yourself look more & more stupid. Get an education maybe you'll quit embarrassing yourself!" Did you ever find "whoes" to be correct spelling? How about "Speggeti". Quit stalking me creep!
The two leading theories are: The husband killed his pregnant wife, which corresponds with crime rates for pregnant women who are often killed by their partners; or that some random person killed a pregnant woman AND then took the time to frame the husband by watching the news, learning of his favorite fishing spot, and the dumping the body there. Sure, you wish every killer was nice enough to leave boatload of evidence, but in reality, not every case has hard evidence. That's why you have common sense and strong circumstantial evidence.
I Believe he Killed his Wife and Child , he wanted another life (fantasy) listen to tapes with his extra marital girl …….this man was Spoilt and selfish …..
Plus how probable are the bodies turning up where he fished on CHRISTMAS EVE ???? as well he goggled or searched tide patterns ….. sorry he’s Quilty !!!
@@tamichambers7455 that never happened lol. The bodies turned up months later. The police, within 2 days, stated on TV where Scott had been fishing. The robbers across the street, of which a neighbor who knew lacy saw her confront on 24th, all of a sudden were told of a perfect place to dump her and frame him. There's so much evidence that's cone out now, and admitted by the detectives, that was purposely done to mislead or omit. He will likely get a new trial.
Common sense has no place in deciding whether someone is guilty of any crime, let alone murder. It's amazing how often so-called common sense takes us in the wrong direction, human minds have so many biases that what appears as common sense is just plain wrong. The only question to be answered is was he guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? That doesn't always require hard evidence, that could be a mixture of strong circumstantial evidence plus the lack of a plausible alternative, for example. You might think that the straightforward theory is more plausible than the alternative in this case (Occam's razor and all that), and I'd agree with you. But that's not the question - the question is is there some part of your mind that believes the alternative might be possible? For me, with my shallow understanding of the case, there is enough doubt.
@@cb3514 Yet the SF Medical examiner hold detective Grogan how unlikely it would be for the bodies to stay in one place for nearly 4 months. He also explained 32 lbs of alleged weight was most likely not sufficient. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, when you talked to Boyd Stephens, he also told you and he was the San Francisco, or still is the San Francisco Medical Examiner. He told you that in cases previously where bodies have bloated with decomposition, that they pulled as much as eighty pounds of weight up with the body surfacing in the Bay, correct? GROGAN: Yes . . . GERAGOS: And he said victim would likely have traveled with the currents for a considerable distance before any exposed weights could catch something on the bottom, or the current would allow the object to stay in one place long enough for the weights to begin to sink in the mud. GROGAN: Yes. When talking about the Richmond Turning Basin area, there. GERAGOS: If it had made it to deeper waters, it's possible the body would still be in pristine condition, right? GROGAN: Yes, sir.
He called Amber from Lacey's candlelight vigil. I get that people can behave differently in this situation but... wow. When you add that he told Amber he lost his wife before she went missing it just seems beyond odd.
Well, again, the very nature of a cheater is lying. Of course he would lie to his mistress. He had to support the premise that he is available. While certainly it points out lack of credibility, when a man’s life is at question, hard evidence also needs to be present. Personally, I feel that Scott is guilty. But I base that on the evidence I heard without any backstory that may have been omitted. Certainly seems like he is the only suspect possible until you account for the burglars and excluded witness’ to her walking the dog? Eleven eye witness’ is a number to add in reasonable doubt. In the end, I think there were bad presumptions leading to lack of vigilant investigation.
@@susan7090 Scott Peterson reported his wife missing at 6pm dec 24th and the robbery across the street took place between 4am and 7am dec 26th. Just as they determined many years ago one thing had nothing to do with the other, so you can’t include those robbers kidnapping Laci Peterson as a viable theory or a possible scenario of what may have happened to her and then that leaves just Scott who could’ve done it added with his absolutely insane behaviour afterwards…”if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it’s probably a duck”
@@adamsapples777 how did anyone rob the neighbors house when there was so much press camped out at Scott Peterson house though? They proved that the date was wrong
I don't believe people when they say they saw someone from a missing poster. This happened to a friend of mine when her sister was missing. People came out of the woodwork saying they saw R in a vehicle, driving a vehicle, or walking along a road, and later we found out that R was already dead during the time people swore that they saw her. She had been killed by the father of her children & her body was buried in a shallow grave during the time people said they saw her. The same thing happened with Shanann Watts and her daughters. They were reported as being seen in Walmart when, in fact, they were dead & buried or disposed of. Idk why people do this, but I suspect it has something to do with attention.
Your observation is very important and I hope media and detectives note this as people who claim to have seen victims are often attention seekers & very sick & selfish people! So sorry to hear your story of dreadful loss. 🙏
The fact that her and the baby's bodies were found close to where he'd been fishing was just too much for me to ignore. I suppose if someone knew he always fished there someone could have killed her and planted her body there,but that would be assuming a lot.
He cleared out the baby's nursery so fast it made my head spin. Cleared it out BEFORE it was known for 100% certain Lacy and the baby were dead. He also said he didn't really need any children because he had his friends to toss a football with. This man did not want to be a father and he did not want to be married.
No if he cleared ot the nursery before the body was found that is evidence that he knew they weren't coming back. You see this in guilty cases all the time and I've not seen it once in an innocent case.
When Scott got home from "fishing", he called, Sharon, and said, "Laci is missing", which to me is an odd thing to say. Why didn't Scott say, "Is Laci with you?" or "I can't find Laci"? Also, when Scott went to his neighbor's house to ask about Laci, he told the neighbor he had been golfing. His story definitely changed.
Thats a good point. So many speak past tense or spell too much what they actually know. Commonly people would say have you heard from or seen. Then go through the list. Sure car was there but she does walk a dog. Its precisely what is said more then any emotion showed. All people react differently in front of others. Some are absolutely so shy a stranger (police) tell them something horrific and absolutely won't get anything from them until they are around someone they know or trust.
@@geofff6671 My first reaction would be to ask hey is Laci with you? Thinking maybe her mom came and got her. Not to automatically think something was amiss.
Just as an aside on "eye witnesses" who saw Laci walking her dog. I recall years ago, in a psych class (it might have actually been a psych and the law class) the professor arranged for an individual to knock on the door, walk in, hand the professor a message with words, and then leave. This was a Monday, Wed, Friday class. On the following Friday, the professor asked the class to write a description of the individual who interrupted the class the previous Monday. 30-35 students in that class, and about as many different descriptions of the individual and the event. Some said it was a female, some said it was male, different color hair, eyes, etc. The point is, that when we are going about our daily lives, we don't pay attention to things. And when asked to recall, we "reconstruct" events, often times filling in the blanks with past experiences. Just like all the people who were positive they saw Brian Laundrie (despite the fact that he was already likely dead), and saw him all over the country.
You're suggesting OVER a dozen witnesses who independently seen Laci walking and described her down to to even the breed of her dog, is no more credible than a single witness. 🤦♂️ Let's talk about the clothes Laci was wearing. Margarita Nava, Laci’s housekeeper, told Detective Brocchini that when she arrived at 8:30 a.m. Laci was wearing a white long-sleeved shirt and (probably) black stretch-type maternity pants, as that was her usual outfit. This was a typical outfit for her according to Debra Wolski, Laci’s instructor at the Village Yoga Center. Mark Geragos: Okay. Now, you also described the clothing that she wore as black stretch pants, white shirt, long sleeves, white tennis shoes and a red fleece vest, correct? Debra Wolski: In the winter, yes. In the cold months. Mark Geragos: Okay. And you described what she was wearing on December 4th, do you remember that? Debra Wolski: It would have been the same. The white shirt, the black stretch pants, the red fleece vest. And this is what Scott told Sharon Rocha on February 13, 2003 in a phone conversation: SHARON ROCHA: And what was she wearing when you left? PETERSON: Ah she had on her black pants - and like a white top with long sleeves. SHARON ROCHA: A pullover or button or what? PETERSON: Yeah. Pullover like ah-you know tee shirt kinda sweater kinda thing. None of the clothing items which Laci was described as wearing on the morning she disappeared were found in the house during the first search. Craig Grogan: We were looking for a white shirt, but we didn't find one in the first search warrant, which would have matched her description on December 24th. We were also looking for white tennis shoes. We did find some white shoes, but they were slip on. They looked like tennis shoes from the front, but they slip on from the back. They don't have a standard back that a tennis shoe would have on them. As far as clothing, that's what I recall we recovered there. Grogan testified: “I would say the majority match with black pants or white shirts, with the description that was released to the media.” The MPD hid information from the public and the defense. Remember, a treasure trove of incriminating evidence against S Todd and G Pearce existed. information about any investigation of this tip. Lt. Aponte gave a signed statement to defense investigators which said the prisoner had been interviewed by MPD, and that MPD had received a copy of the taped phone conversation. Instead of this information being disclosed during discovery. The only information provided to the defense about his tip was a simple notation on a CD which included 10,000 other tips about the case. -Merlin, the trailing dog owned by Cindee Valentin, trailed Laci's scent to the Gallo Winery in the airport district, on the night of December 26. -December 31, a gold Croton watch, identical to Laci’s watch which disappeared the same day she did, was pawned by Deanna Renfro. Highly unlikely this is just a coincidence. It gets better. The families of Deanna Renfro, Steven Todd and the Tenbrinks know one another. -Diane Jackson reported seeing 3 men with a VAN and a SAFE in front of the Medina’s house at 11:40 a.m. on December 24. There is no debating this. The burglary happened the same day Laci disappeared. Both Todd and Pearce pled guilty to burglary charges 12-24-02. They both received reduced sentences. - S Todd would have received 25 years for his third offense. So why did he get 8 years and 8 months, far less than 25 years. Pearce received only 180 days, yet he was another career criminal. -Tom Harshman, who lived in Modesto, was driving with Elizabeth Harshman between 2 and 4 p.m. on the afternoon of December 24. He saw a young pregnant woman being forced into a van. He turned around and went back to the spot hoping to find the van still there and hoping to get more information about the license plate number. But they were gone. 1. He called police (911 MPD) that same day. 2. Tried again December 28. 3. December 28, he also called the Laci tip line twice. His first call on this date was listed incorrectly under the name Harsh and was given Bates Stamp number 14789. The call was given to Detective Holmes. Harsh(man) said that he had called 3 or 4 days earlier on the day that he had seen a pregnant young woman being pushed into a van. There had been a man standing over her as she squatted to urinate with her back up against a chain-link fence. The man was described as 30’s, tall, thin, with ponytail, dirty blonde to gray hair, scrubby looking. When she finished, the woman was shepherded back to the driver’s door of the car, where another man’s arm was seen pulling her into the car. He said the young woman was wearing black pants and a red shirt. He said she had a scared look on her face." 4. Jan 3rd, he went to the Command Post in the park and relayed this to the officer on duty. Over 40,000 pages in the discovery and nothing about this report was in it. 5. February 2003, Harshman’s wife spoke to a relative of hers who lived in New York about the sighting of Laci Peterson near the corner of Scenic and Claus. Mrs. Harshman’s relative shared this story with an NYPD detective. This NYPD detective was so concerned that he contacted the MPD and spoke personally to Detective Grogan on February 14, 2003. What did Grogan do with the information? Nothing at all. 6. pre-trial hearings in May of 2004, DA Investigator Kevin Bertalotto noticed the Harshman tip and insisted that Grogan call Tom Harshman and speak to him personally. Grogan did this on May 18, 2004. An audiotape and a transcription of his conversation with Harshman to the defense on May 20, 11 days before the beginning of the trial.
Over a dozen witnesses had described Laci even down to the breed of her dog on the 24th. Yet not a single person ever came forward or was found that could have been Laci, and the her disappearance was highly publicized. So who did they see? Here are the people interviewed. Elizabeth Guptill, pregnant walker with son in jogging stroller, no dog, didn’t walk in December Janet Kenworthy, Park walker with white Huskie mix (she didn’t testify), worked on 24th, thinks husband walked the dog that day Jill Lear, pregnant walker with Australian Shepherd, didn’t walk 24th Joan Lee, pregnant walker with chocolate Lab and Husband, didn’t walk 24th Melba Martinez, La Loma walker with 2 Golden Retrievers, didn’t remember if she walked 24th Dianne Merenda, blond, not pregnant, Park walker with Golden Retriever, didn’t walk 24th Patricia Mewhinney, long blonde hair, Park walker w/German Shepherd/Black Lab mix, drove and then walked on 24th east from Phoenix Amy Neumann, pregnant walker with apricot standard Poodle, not walking in December Jordan Visola-Prescott, pregnant neighborhood walker with black/white Border Collie/Lab mix and Red Flyer red wagon with daughter in it, 99% sure she didn’t walk on the 24th Kim Westphal, not pregnant, long brown hair, neighborhood walker with Golden Retriever and a friend, 14766 : Kim Westfall (Westphal); she was walking with a friend on 12-24 at 11:30 Michelle Dean (Merced Co. DA, Laci look-alike with Golden Retriever named McKenzie), did not walk on December 24
This is a great point I think this should be a required lesson in any education. I was in middle school in the 1970s and they did this exact thing. Except they had somebody running with a mask and a fake gun and pretend to be a terrorist. Lol. Things were a little bit different back then When we had something called a liberal education. I have never forgotten that lesson from age 12 to now.
*This kind of case is representative of "The Lizzie Borden Syndrome", whereby the evidence is so ambiguous that it makes a clear-cut assignment of guilt difficult, if not impossible. One other comment: since the Peterson baby was not yet born, Scott should not be held accountable for two murders. Millions of unborn babies are routinely aborted and trashed with no murder charges assigned. Therefore, Scott Peterson should not be charged for "murdering" an unborn baby - unless we're prepared to start charging abortion doctors for murder as well.*
Look up The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 protects unborn infants against violence and murder, and any individual responsible for the death or harm of a child in utero is charged separately from the offense towards the pregnant woman.
I remember following this case on the news as it unfolded. What convinced me of his guilt was the finding of Conner and Laci's bodies only a couple of miles from where Scott was fishing that day. I find it unlikely that burglars or intruders would travel so far with Laci's body and dump it in the same waters where Scott was fishing.
My issue with THAT is police, within 2 days, had a press conference telling the world where Scott was fishing. They allowed for the opportunity of a perfect framing. New evidence has come out and also evidence not allowed in the trial. There's too much reasonable doubt, and a real possibility the burglars did it. 11 witnesses who knew her saw her that morning. A neighbor did see her confront suspicious people. He needs a new trial. If he's guilty then they prove it with all the evidence this time.
@@catnapper7509 no. That's not what the evidence says. They wouldn't have been dead...and Connor's growth indicates that. You obviously are missing a lot of actual evidence.
@@catnapper7509 Conner was alive no less than 6 days after the 24th. That comes from a forensic pathologist (medical examiner) and a forensic anthropologist.(States expert) and an OBGYN with over 30 years experience. They concluded Conner could have been alive even as far along as Jan 14th.
@@jwait1496 OK I agree it's not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. I don't like it either. But my suspicion is he did it. Not enough to convict, just my opinion. Cheers y'all.
How about this: He told his mistress, Amber Frey, that he was a widower two weeks before Lacy disappeared. I don't think you mentioned that. He was foreshadowing the future.
He had not desire of been a father and on Holiday coming He was planning to expended with the girl his having a affairs and told her he had lost his wife ,how was he going to justify not expende thank Given with his wife and family ?
How about this : He told her that to reinforce his statement that he was looking for a legitimate long term relationship with Frey. Divorce/polygamy or abandonment would lead her to believe that he's lying and that in reality he's a "player." Guys do that all the time without "foreshadowing" the "pending" murder of their "ex" wives while they're still very much alive and live to a ripe old age ending by natural causes. Which only serves to prove him a womanizing liar and not a murderer. Which subsequently, is not illegal. But consequently leads people to draw erroneous conclusions of guilt. Why would a guilty man that's planning but not yet executed the murder of his wife tell his girlfriend she's already dead? Lol! Only makes sense to those that succumb to feelings due to lack of or more probably in spite of facts, reason and logic. 😀
True, Scott Pererson is a frequent liar and scumbag; that much has been established. But I think Dr. Grande (among many others) has pointed out there's definitely A LOT of reasonable doubt in the case. 1. Absolutely no physical evidence linking him. 2. If he did kill her, the most rational time to do it was during the night, so he could dispose of her in the dead of night w/o many witnesses. Instead, he drives her body to his boat that morning, so he can dispose of it in broad daylight? Also, people see him at the marina, but NO ONE sees him with any package large enough to hold an adult body... 3. The 11 people who say the saw Laci after Scott left shouldn't be discounted. How many pregnant women matching her description, with a dog like hers, would happen to be strolling around the same area she lived?? Again, I'm not saying I know whether Scott is guilty or not. I don't--I'm not God. But is there reasonable doubt? If we're genuinely trying to be objective and look at the available evidence, yeah, there is...
@Megan Smith That's not evidence of murder, Lacy knew about the boat, she just didn't tell her family, and those tools were stored in a house where she lived. He would have left far more evidence, even pros do.
The important part too about those burglars claiming they were there on the 26th is that by the 26th there were a number of press outside of the Peterson house. It isn't likely a burglar would see a lot of people around with TV cameras and still break into a house.
Wrong. GERAGOS: Okay. What was the condition of the street on the 26th when you arrived shortly before 5:00 o'clock? JUDGE: With regard to traffic or vehicles? GERAGOS: Traffic, whether there were satellite trucks, whether there were police cars, whether there were people there. WEND: I don't remember any media being there, specifically. I remember some people walking around, but I was able to just drive up to the front yard of the Medina residence, got out and took the burglary report. GERAGOS: Were you in a marked patrol car? WEND: Yes, sir.
That is false. Sad that it sealed it for you. He never attempted to cross the border. He was 30 miles from the border in San Diego. He was headed north and arrested at Torrey Pines, where he was scheduled to play golf with his father and two brothers. Scott's mom, Jackie, was going to loan John the money to buy out Scott. John was then going to take over the payments. On April 8, 2003, Jackie went to Bank of America to withdraw $10,000 from an old account she rarely used. She did not know her account number, so she gave them her social security number to look it up. Unbeknownst to Jackie, she was listed on Scott and Laci's checking account as well. (Jackie had opened that account with Scott in 1991. Scott added Laci when they were married and never removed his mother.) The bank gave Jackie $10,000 from Scott's checking account. The withdrawal receipt was entered as Exhibit D8Y1. Jackie paid Scott $8000 cash for his equity in the Dodge pick up. She paid him cash so he could better negotiate while shopping for a car. On April 12, 2003, Scott purchased a Mercedes from Michael Griffin. He paid him with 36 $100 bills. Scott had $4400 left of the $8000 his mother had given him. Scott discovers the $10,000 withdrawal from his bank account. He sees the withdrawal ticket signed by his mom and calls her. Jackie then goes to Washington Mutual on April 17th and withdraws $10,000 cash out of her account. She gives the money to Scott that day to replace the money she took out of his account. She paid him in cash so that the bank would not put a hold on the funds. Scott now has roughly $14,400 in cash. Scott is arrested the morning of April 18th . He had yet to deposit the money his mother had given him the day before.
Yeah which makes you think that Innocent people can be convicted of any crime based on how other people thing other people should feel and act when human emotions are on a large spectrum. Amanda Knox’s case is a great example of this.
@@aok4418so days before she went missing he tells his side chick he lost his wife and this is going to be his first christmas without her, buys a boat, researches about the water currents in a specific area. After she went missing he said he was golfing. Why did he had to lie about that? If there was nothinh suspicious about going fishing, why did he initially hide that?Doesn't make any sense. Then her body shows up in the area he went "fishing". Like, wow, if he's not guilty, he has to be the unluckiest person ever.
@@aok4418 is it true that there were other pregnant women in lacys neighborhood that were murdered as well? If so, why was that not used in scotts defense? I even heard that they found another pregnant woman dead in the same place lacy was found and with her arms, legs chopped off too. Is this true?
@@analuchesi Wow, you really are misinformed. Detective Wall testified that Scott used his home computer to search for boating regulations, Department of Fish and Game Rules and Regulations, to search classified ads for boats and for information on fishing. In all Scott’s computer use, there is only about 30 seconds total of material that contained any kind of charts for the San Francisco Bay. The prosecution and many news reports egregiously referred to these 30 seconds as “researching” the currents in the San Francisco Bay. Prosecution Exhibits 179 a-u and 182 a-ee show all pages of Scott’s internet
Dr Grande didn't consider what I think is one of the most important fact: that Laci's body was found right where Scott said he was that day. What are the chances someone else dumped her body right where Scott said he was??
I think they said, something about the investigators told the world, where Scott had went that day> I think the idea was the robbers dump Laci after they heard where he went,,, That sounds flakey! but, personally I think he is innocent,,,
@@jeanniehanford2563 This is something I need to look into. I don't know if the cops immediately disclosed this, or whether it was a couple weeks/months after the fact. It may make a huge difference in whether this is plausible based on the condition of the bodies. What do you think about him having told Amber that his wife was dead and that he cried hysterically about it to her and all the lies he told about where he was on new years?
Why would he dump the body that somebody else has killed? You see how ridiculous that is? That's exactly how your statement sounds, you assume the conclusion and then are surprised how your assumptions lead to the said conclusion.
@@dguarino6586 Wow. Are you serious. I am pointing out that Virginia Grassi in her comment has implied that nobody else could kill her... and your response is that VG has not said that somebody killed her. Maybe if something is going over your head, learn to read.
But there was three independent witnesses that saw him getting onto the lake, and all of them said he has no body in the boat. Also, his boat is tiny, it was proven that it would completely capsize if anything heavy would be thrown over.
I love your videos, and in this one you bring up some good points. But I disagree with you on your conclusions for this one. Scott Peterson told Amber Frey he had "lost his wife", before the murder. That indicates to me that he most probably did do it and it was premeditated. He had MOTIVE to kill her: he wasn't thrilled about becoming a father, he was having an affair (s), they were having financial problems, and there was life insurance. I just don't see two house burglars having enough motive to kill her and her unborn child and disposing of her body out in the bay. Did either of them have access to a boat? I don't see someone like Lacy, who grew up in California, going up to a house being broken into alone, without first calling the police. If you look at his affair with Amber, you see he was very manipulative and not really concerned with the consequences of his behavior. It doesn't seem in the range of normal to me that he showed no concern for his nearly full-term son. Even if he wanted a divorce and was not in love with Laci anymore, it still does not seem normal that he showed no concern for her whereabouts or that of their son. He was texting and lying to his lover while family is holding a candlelight vigil, for Pete's sake. I think there may be room for some reasonable doubt, but his behavior and motives put him in the 51% or more catagory. There's lots more, but other people are commenting on those things.
I too agree with some of the points made in the video. It could be argued there may be reasonable doubt just because of the way the case was eventually handled. However what tips it into the 51% is the inconsistencies in Scott Peterson's truths. On the day he wasn't sure of if he was fishing or golfing to certain people. He recently purchased a new boat (careless who knew about it). He planned this event or just spur of the moment to go to the bay on the one day of the year that was chaotic, leaving his 8 month pregnant wife. (He wasn't working) He didn't really have anything of note to say about that day he took the time to travel 90miles? He didn't even have the correct equipment in some aspects. You could say he didn't really care if he had caught nothing or did nothing up there. He picked the one day out of the year where it would be not as busy in the marina bay. The comments to Amber Frey are also concerning. Prior to Laci's disappearance, Scott predicted the death or disappearance of his wife to Amber (obviously this was his cover about him being married to gain sympathy and to keep his married life a secret.) Witnesses are the lowest form of evidence that the courts can produce because their testimonies can be scrutinized. So, this argument about seeing Laci Peterson walking her dog doesn't ring true when other reports say that, the dog was a different breed or the woman in question was pregnant but no dog and all those other sort of problematic differences in obtaining accurate accounts of that day. He had the truck, boat and storage facility. He had the means to make his own anchors and again he also had another "truth" to explain what he used all the cement for. Infact he had a lot of the answers to whatever questions were raised. Didn't much matter how trivial those questions were, he had them. The one thing that really nailed it, is that the bodies did wash up where he had been fishing that day. 3miles from his location. Science doesn't always reveal the truth, whatever that truth may be. Commonsense has to be applied in almost all aspects of criminal cases. This is just an example piece. Two people locked in a small confined room, one is dead. There's a gun in the room. This person was shot. However, science says there is no evidence that the other person did this. The door is locked from the inside and they were talking just moments ago. The science also says the other person didn't commit suicide either. The one person alive will tell the truth and by his own actions, deny accountability but if he can't explain the occurrences that lead to this then the truth lies there.
Pace Yrself didn’t they also find the molds he used to make the weights to hold the body under water? Or an anchor was found- I remember the concrete was a match to the type Peterson had
I have just recently started watching this man speak. I enjoy his videos but he's got it so wrong about Scott peterson. Remember scott phoned Amber from the vigil but he said he was in Paris at the eifel tower, also he said my wife is lost to amber before lacy went missing, pre meditated as he knew what was go happen to lacy and there unborn child.
Pace Yrself I agree, I understand where Dr. Grande is going with this. You cannot know how an individual will deal with his grief. Yes, there were holes in the investigation. But if you follow Scott Peterson cold hearted behavior, in general... and his whole affair. You can bet he was a Narcissist, and a psychopath. Never mind, his upbringing was the classic case of how to raise a psychopath, with the propensity to kill.
Exactly. We don't need all the puzzle pieces to be in place before we can see the big picture. Lack of scientific evidence or not, Scott consistently told on himself. Science can only explain so much in this world...the rest of it we have to piece together using intuition, judgment and critical thinking.
Scott Peterson told Amber Frey that he had "lost his wife" before while she was very much alive. At a candlelight vigil for Laci, Scott called Amber Frey and told her he was ringing in the new year in Paris. He truly was a fertilizer salesman. I'm not saying that, just because he had an affair or seemed calm and collected with a missing wife, that automatically means he committed murder. But it's the preponderance of so many other things on top of that. The police certainly made their share of errors, but they didn't make him act so guilty. He incriminated himself. And then there was the escape attempt. He disguised himself, took his brother's ID, and made a run for the border in a vehicle full of survival and camping gear. He was trying to disappear because he knew he was guilty. The theory about the burglars makes zero sense. Two burglars murder a woman in Modesto, haul her all the way out to San Francisco Bay, and drop her in there? Scott Peterson said he went fishing in the bay on the 24th. Your fastidious and festive wife is 7.5 months pregnant, you have a mistress, and you go out fishing the day before Christmas? My goodness, he told the police where he was that day, and sure enough, that's where the bodies were found. If someone else did it, did he happen to encounter them at the bay with his wife's body in their boat? The likelihood of anyone else being responsible in this case is infinitesimal.
I've heard it said that narcissistic people are actually really bad at crime because they can't see how something might look from other people's perspectives. They overestimate their skills and tend to think they have committed the perfect crime when they obviously haven't. There are obviously so many parallels here with the Chris Watts case. You would have thought Chris would have studied this case to see where Scott screwed up. Neither one could resist the urge to try and dupe law enforcement or the media, but they didn't fool anyone.
If Scott didn't kill her, then someone killed her/ abducted Lacy, drove about the same time Scott drove to San Francisco Bay, and dumped her in the water about the same time Scott was on the water. This seems highly unlikely. He did it.
But why would Scott dump the body where he went fishing? If he did it it was very stupid of him.And by the way I saw a picture of the boat: very small And what about the people there who saw him badly manuvering the boat in the water It was daylight n there were people there Who in his right mind would dump a body under those conditions. Think about it. Bodies are dumped at night or when there are no people around
@@luisagallarotti9188 The reason he dumped her there was very simple: he thought the two or three concrete ⚓ he tied to her body would weigh her down and she wouldn't float up and he'd get away with murder. But it did work out that way. They were from Modesto, which is like 90 miles away from San Francisco where Laci and Connor were found. Doesn't it seem coincidental that the last day/time Laci is seen alive and she winds up where he went fishing that day? Well, it was more than a coincidence.
@billchessmen What anchors. The trial revealed he made one anchor. It was found in his boat. The alleged distinctive circles that Brocchini said were on the trailer resembled rectangular shapes from cement bags from work he did at house in September. The pitcher the prosecution alleged Scott made the anchors in didn't even fit. Geragos: "I've got a sixth-grader -- that looks like a triangle to me." Hendee: "If you look carefully ..." (Prosecutor Harris objects) Delucchi: "The jury can see it. They can draw their own conclusions." Geragos: (pointing to various shapes) "Is this a circle? ... Is this?" (Harris objects repeatedly) Delucchi: "Sustained, sustained, sustained." Geragos: "Ever go out into the fields where they have those circular patterns?" CEMENT DID MATCH THE SAMPLE IN THE DRIVEWAY GEBLER: Yes. In our sample we found fly ash, cement, pea gravel and sand, similar to what was described by Mr. O'Neill. GERAGOS: Does that mean that the cement that was used in the anchor and the cement that you've collected here and the cement sample that you also observed, does that mean that they all are one and the same? GEBLER: They're all consistent. They all have, they all have all, from what I saw, the, the, the anchor and these materials are consistent with each other. GERAGOS: What does that mean? GEBLER: With the concrete. GERAGOS: You say they're consistent. Does that mean they have all the same components? GEBLER: Yes, sir. The States expert didnt know the difference between a sub base and the actual concrete. How could he since he didn't even go to the scene, Gebler however did.
@@billchessmen What anchors? The trial revealed he made one anchor. It was found in his boat. The alleged distinctive circles that Brocchini said were on the trailer resembled rectangular shapes from cement bags from work he did at house in September. The pitcher the prosecution alleged Scott made the anchors in didn't even fit. Steven Gebler, a concrete expert, testified at trial the concrete found in the driveway was a match, just like Scott had said.
"I'm sure the dogs were nice dogs." Oh Dr Grande. You can tell how kind hearted you are in taking such care in making sure you don't disparage the possibly unqualified search dogs. That little detail made me smile inspire of the tragic case you're discussing.
You can tell how genuine Dr. Grade is, huh? It is a rare trait, especially through social media and a person with a big following. I respect Dr. Grande!
Someone who could cheat, lie to mistress, went on boat in same area where bodies were found. I do find his demeanor suspicious. He lost a wife and son. I believe he has severe personality disorder. He had motive and opportunity. If you add everything up together he's guilty.
First time I’ve ever disagreed with you Doc. How about the fact he said he was going to go golfing that day but changed his mind because it was too cold and rainy so instead he decided to drive 3 hours round trip and 180 miles to fish for less than an hour? How about the timing of the purchase of the fishing license? What about his lies about the concrete? His explanation for the pool umbrellas in the back of his pick up? Laci’s hair strands in boat? The circumstantial evidence is endless and overwhelming. If he gets a new trial, I’m confident a second jury will come to the same conclusion, first degree premeditated murder.
Turns out that Scott never said he was going golfing. Not to anyone. Lacy's stepfather assumed that's where he had been. Lacy knew he was going fishing because was going to warehouse first and she asked him to drop of the large umbrellas for storage. She knew about the boat she was seen there with him a week before by witnesses who knew her. The detectives did so much lying in this case that he will likely get a new trial. But yeah the golf thing has been debunked in interviews and transcripts
What about the concrete. -DID NOT MAKE FIVE ANCHORS. They did not find cement anchors in the bay even though the State alleged he made 5 anchors. These distinctive circles that Brocchini said were on the trailer resembled rectangular shapes from cement bags from work he did at house in September. The pitcher the prosecution alleged Scott made the anchors in didn't even fit. -CEMENT DID MATCH THE SAMPLE IN THE DRIVEWAY CONCRETE EXPERT GEBLER: Yes. In our sample we found fly ash, cement, pea gravel and sand, similar to what was described by Mr. O'Neill. GERAGOS: Does that mean that the cement that was used in the anchor and the cement that you've collected here and the cement sample that you also observed, does that mean that they all are one and the same? GEBLER: They're all consistent. They all have, they all have all, from what I saw, the, the, the anchor and these materials are consistent with each other. GERAGOS: What does that mean? GEBLER: With the concrete. GERAGOS: You say they're consistent. Does that mean they have all the same components? GEBLER: Yes, sir. He forgot to take the umbrellas out. Where's the evidence these umbrellas were used for anything? People often fish when it's cold. How often do you see people swinging golf clubs when it's cold and "raining".
@@jwait1496 it really bothers me how much misinformation people have regarding this case, but that is 100% due to the media who promoted false statements by the detectives from the very beginning. Those false details get spread over the years, and people become convinced they know everything. Just like the jury, with 2 brand new replaced members during verdict did. Most people also don't realize that, for some reason, this jury was never sequestered. That means a lot of them went home each night researching and soaking in everything the media shared. Many of them were interviewed much later, and outright admitted they did this. I never understood how the judge could legally demand no sequester...especially for this infamous case. Is there a chance he's guilty of it? Absolutely! Was he given a legal trial, and is he guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? Absolutely not. I think he will get a new trial, and this time all the evidence will be presented...I hope. If he's guilty then the prosecution can prove it without all the lies, omission, and mishandling.
The only actual evidence is a piece of hair found in his boat? What about any other evidence found in the house, pickup, or anything else that shows evidence of a murder? What about all the witnesses that saw laci that day and no witnesses seeing Scott commiting a murder or transporting a body at the dock? Seems like a coincidence
You failed to mention Amber Frye's testimony theft Scott told her his wife had died at the time she went missing. Also, he brought cinder blocks on board when he went fishing. You didn't discuss Scott's narcissism or psychopathy.
Her body WAS dumped in the ocean in the general area where Scott had been fishing. The theory that burglars killed her, transported her body to the water, accessed a boat, and dumped her in the ocean in the same general vicinity is just not plausible (unless Scott hired them to do it). Plus if he strangled her the lack of physical evidence is not unusual.
Therewas no way for them to even speculate that she was strangled because they never found anything but her torso and a few limbs. The ridiculous assumption that the baby lived longer was because of a "coffin birth." The baby was protected from the elements for a lot longer than she was because he was still in utero. Eventually her dead body expelled the fetus.
@@c.mckenzie2155 In addition, her family said that she hated boats and had only been out on one a couple of times and got terribly seasick. She would not have gone out on a boat willingly especially on Christmas Eve.
He also puts too much weight on evidence that is notoriously unreliable (eyewitness testimony). He knows it's unreliable and yet he asks, "Could they all be wrong?" - The answer is yes, they can all be wrong, and it wouldn't even be unusual for them all to be wrong.
Dis-information video or Just another RUclipsr The JOKE IS ON US! THIS GUY IS HAVING TROUBLE MAINTAINING HIS AMERICAN ACCENT. And/Or foreign disinformation....yup.
@M Bird That verdict was purely based on emotion. They won their case only when Amber Fry hit the stand. Yes, Scott Peterson is a cheating pile of shit but that doesn't make him a murderer. I 100% agree with Dr. Grande, I don't know if Scott killed his wife but I doubt it happened the way the prosecution said it did. I'm glad Scott is on the road for a new trial, I want to hear the real evidence. BTW I was in junior high when this unfolded, I remember it very clearly.
I don't know much about the case, but I thought the "witnesses" claimed to have seen a pregnant lady walking a dog; not that they knew Laci & positively identified her. Thinking about it, I vaguely remember @ least 1 possible witness saying the police never got back to her. I wonder why the defence didn't call any of them, to show reasonable doubt.
@Kasia there are pregnant women and golden retrievers all over the place. And considering that is a breed most highly recommended for families with small children, the occurence of pregnant women with golden retrievers is probably lot more common than you would think. That would be easy enough to chase down if you were detectives of the time.
The prosecution stated he killed laci on December 23, the defense showed laci was on her computer looking at umbrellas with sunflowers on them at 8:40 am on December 24. Scott’s Lawler believed this proved the prosecution’s theory was wrong and there is now reasonable doubt. The fear was if some of the witnesses could be shown incorrect or confused the jury would be also or hold it against the defense, looking back it would not have mattered, that jury was finding Scott guilty, even if laci and Connor showed up alive
Dr. Grande, I’ve been a subscriber for a year or so, and I see that this video was made 3yrs ago. I’ve agreed with every opinion of yours with the exception of this one. I remember when this tragedy happened. I followed it and researched the case for many months. There was a lot of evidence that you didn’t mention re: Scott P. I don’t believe this case depended on what the police initially thought or felt re: Petersons demeanor. This guy is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. imo.
@@andie9589 that is not evidence. Every time I see one of these comments it just proves the point. If there were real evidence against him, you would have used that for your example but you didn't. You do not put people on death row without a shred of evidence.
@@andie9589 Not true. His friends testified in the penalty phase that they didn't believe he was guilty. They weren't JUST saying the death penalty was wrong in this case. You're making up your own testimony.
He’s not guilty beyond reasonable doubt . The DA withheld important evidence like the concrete that Scot bought was told he used it to make anchors that he drowned her with but Scott told them he used it to fill it a pot hole in his driveway and when they checked it out the quick creat was used in the pot hole. Multiple witnesses said they seen her walking the dog after Scott was fishing so how could he dumped her body. And a PI hired by his family went to the bay in that same kind of boat and used a 150 pound dummy to dump it over that little boat 4 times and every time the boat tipped over . There is not one single physical evidence that links him to the crime so he’s not guilty without reasonable doubt
@@vickmcfadden833 what Peterson said about filling a “pot hole” and what his family’s P.I says doesn’t even begin to out way the facts and evidence in the case. Also, the people who say they saw the pregnant lady walking her dog didn’t know her or speak to her that day. Everyone has an opinion and that’s okay.. at the end of the day, the overwhelming evidence supports the guilty verdict.
@@andie9589 although I do believe that Scott wasn’t a perfect man and did have strange behavior, this is simply not real evidence that would convict a man beyond reasonable doubt. It is merely speculation. In addition to the current news that a jury was biased and lied on her pre-jury application is the reason this trail will have a re hearing later this month
I heard the pregnant woman seen walking her dog came forward and she was pregnant, had the same type of dog, and was walking in the same area....I believe Scott Peterson is guilty as hell.
"11 eye witnesses saw her after"... I'm not saying he's innocent, I dont know the case well enough to make any assumption. I just happened to read this comment at the moment Dr. Grande started talking about the alleged eye witnesses lol
This is hear say. Unless you can identify a press report or interview with the second pregnant woman, the person who told you that can simply be making it up, or repeating something someone else invented. There are even alternate suspects. This conviction is not safe.
Let me see this in writing. So much of the Scott Peterson case are rumors and not fact. There was no other woman who had Laci’s exact description walking the same dog. That’s a rumor.
It wasn’t that he was just calm and not distressed, he didn’t seem to care that she was missing at all. He was having conversations with his girlfriend and flirting with his sister babysitter. When your wife is missing those kinds of behaviors do matter!
Scott's Involvement in the Search for Laci and Conner Immediately called friends and family Checked with all the neighbors Began immediate search for Laci in La Loma Park Helped get flyers printed and distributed Did not hesitate to let police search house, vehicles and warehouse immediately On Christmas morning began going door to door and posting flyers Translated the missing flyer to Spanish Organized search teams at volunteer center Went on Good Morning America Dec 26 to publicize search Opened the Volunteer Center every morning at 7:00 and closed it on most nights Did numerous interviews with several Modesto police officers answering all questions asked of him Called police frequently to pass along tips Repeatedly called police, asking questions about the status of searches and the best ways to use the volunteers Personally posted hundreds of posters around the state of California Hand delivered posters to police stations and fire stations throughout California Prepared fliers for birthing centers and midwives Expanded the search to Southern California Scott and Mike Richardson searched at prenatal clinics around the area Based on a tip, Scott and Mike Richardson searched a construction site in Manteca Did television interviews with Diane Sawyer, America's Most Wanted and several local stations Paid to hire a renowned psychic Sold country club membership to help finance the search, specifically the website Signed waiver for release of Laci's OB-GYN records Worked for several weeks to organize a national search for Laci Day Established the 1-800-Laci-Info hot line for people who might not want to contact the police Met with the Mayor, Chief of Police and numerous politicians asking for assistance Visited churches in the area to hand out fliers Went to locations all over Northern California searching for information on Laci - traveled thousands of miles following up on tips and to keep the search for Laci alive Visited search sites including Berkeley Marina, Pittsburgh Marina, Oakdale, Manteca, San Luis O'Neil Forebay and Reservoir and around Modesto ----- Also, from a TV interview: (Katie) Couric: Scott at one point wanted to hire a dog psychic to interview Laci’s dog, McKenzie? (Sharon) Rocha: Yes. Couric: And did you think? Rocha: “Why aren’t we getting a people psychic?” (Chuckles) You know, if you’re gonna hire a psychic… At that time I was just “What are you talking about?” It was, to me, absolutely ridiculous.
@@lindamilliren7893 IIRC they had to include deaths up to a year after birth. Some sources say traffic accidents kill more pregnant women and medical misadventure kills way more. Still, Laci lived 10 - 40 days after she was abducted. That excludes Scott and makes the failures of the MPD much more egregious.
I think the fact that she was found 90 miles away, in a body of water he admitted going fishing, is pretty damning. I mean seriously, any other individual murdering her would have left her elsewhere. He was cheating, telling Amber his fantasy-land tales, acting rather indifferent to Laci missing, and a myriad of other things. I understand and can accept the misreading his behavior or attitude. As you said, everyone acts different. I can even understand him trying to run away if he felt he was going to be arrested, if innocent. However, he just did too many things that were contradictory to a innocent person, and I even heard that he removed Laci Peterson missing person fliers. For me, despite the lack of forensic evidence, the fact that she was found in that body of water is too convenient. Eye witnesses are nearly worthless. He easily could have strangled her like Chris Watts then taken her to that body of water and cut her up there.
No doubt it looks bad for him. His behavior was not indicative of intelligence. With that in mind, I wonder how he did not leave any physical evidence. There are different types of intelligence though.
It's very common that murderers will put as much distance from the initial crime scene and themselves to establish their alibi and attempting to avoid accountability. Again, this would be only one element of a case that the investigators would look at, while investigating everything else. No matter how insignificant it is or where it leads. Any inconsistencies in truth are greatly magnified, when a crime of this magnitude occurs.
The police released his alibi so it would have been easy for the killer(s) to frame him. They also found a body in the same area a few years ago cut from the torso similar to laci's body.
Think Evelyn Hernandez & basically a planted body in that bay has already happened 6 mos before Laci & Connor was found..Look, the odds are that the body was planted by someone other than Scott..Why? Just what I mentioned..Someone already used ocean water already as a way to wash DNA in that same bay to plant a body..So it proves someone has already used the Bay to plant a body.....Think about it..Just 6 mos before , someone obviously planted Evelyn Hernandez & her child in the same bay with missing hands & feet & head as Connor & Laci found 6 mos later & in August of 2002 ..Scott didn't even know Amber Frey then..She was found in the bay in the exact same fashion as Connor & Laci..And Janey Peterson has a letter written & mailed on Dec 27th from someone who was concerned that now the media & police revealed where he was that someone will dump the body there to put it on Scott..In other words to say, it's hardly likely someone would dump that body..Basically the body of Evelyn Hernandez shows it has akready been done..That's why I know someone would go at links to pin it on Scott..Because someone obviously dumped Evelyn Hernandez there ..In other word ,it's been done already..
@sumridge I know..People say these lowlifes wont go 90 miles to dump a body..I say Evelyn Hernandez & her child missing hand,feet & head in the same fashion as Connor & Laci & was already obviously dumped in that same bay & only 6 mos before Laci & Connor was found only 6 mos before.Ocean water is a good DNA avoidance so to speak..For some reason,people must think OJ & this case was alike..Who knows..Like police planted blood in OJ's Bronco and no one would plant a body in the Bay....There is no comparison..There were numerous lies by the detectives as you & me knew..But .I keep saying look, someone already has planted a body there & in the same fashion as Connor & Laci and only 6 mos before..In other words,it has already been done
Ya, either he is guilty or he’s very unlucky. Being a liar and a cheater destroys your credibility. And being emotionless and smug biases people against interpreting your actions generously. I wish the investigation had followed up on exculpatory evidence. And had obtained physical evidence. Their circumstantial theories were easily challenged but repeated enough in the media people took them as solid.
He apparently had other affairs before Amber that she knew about. She probably kept it a secret from friends and family at the time. She shouldn’t have. It might have ruined his reputation enough, that it wouldn’t have been a problem to divorce her. He would know he would be under the ‘microscope’ of the police. As it happened, he probably thought he was too good looking and life was so easy for him, that he could perfectly cover his tracks.
My sister died from a brain tumor at 14 and I was 19. I refused to view her body as I wanted to remeber her like the last time I met her, alive and laughing. I did not cry for weeks until the funeral and I did see her cascet. Then all my walls broke down. My family was worried about my lack of public affection before that. You just never know How someone will react to trauma and greif. I still feel Scott is guilty, But not because of his emotional reaction (or lack there off). Shock and greif looks very different from person to person.
Yeah I'm sick to death of prosecutors using "lack of emotion" like somehow you're supposed to grieve in "their" way, and that's supposed to automatically prove you innocent or guilty. FFS, Prosecutors are NOT psychologists, and they need to stop acting like they are!
It wasn't just lack of emotion. It was him acting like nothing happened at all. He went on sleeping normally. Hitting on his 1/2 sisters 22 yesr old baby sitter. Laughed and joked around. Ate fine. Smiled fine. Usually people who don't show typical sadness at least show aloofness and detachedness. Being zoned out and in a fog. They don't act like nothing happened and go on living as if they didn't just lose their wife and son. There were people who help families who go through things like this and who see greving families act all different kinds of ways, and even they commented that Scott acted different than everyone else they have ever worked with.
The only comment I’ll make is this: When Scott Petersen was telling (lies) to Amber (his girlfriend) that he was a widow, he also told her this is the first time he’d be without his wife because she’s missing. Did he have the clairvoyant ability to know that Laci wasn’t going to be around that Christmas? No, he didn’t. He knew she wasn’t going to be found.
Yes, he said that he had 'lost' his wife, which ordinarily means that person has died. Since he was lying about his marital status, you would think that he would deny being married.
You could not prove he did it with evidence and jurors no longer care about the evidence. Innocent until proven guilty. It the corrupt jury hadn't removed 2 jurors. The 1st broke the rules and was replaced by a mad dog woman that almost lost her unborn baby from violence. She lied to get on that jury. She is the reason he is no longer on death row. The mad dog woman walked in the jury room saying he's guilty I will not talk about the evidence I refuse to ,look at the evidence. So the foreman told the woman they would .look at the evidence and don't tell the jury what they will not do. This foreman was the smartest person on that jury and was going to tell the Judge to remove this woman but this corrupt jury removed the foreman instead it would have been a hung jury and they wanted death with zero evidence. Now he gets a new trial. The media tried this case and the ignorant jury was beyond stupid. One day the jury will reap this count on it.
@@tc98826, not everyone speaks the same and he always thinks he's the smartest on in the group, he sees that as honest or an admittance that EVERYONE else is too dumb to catch on to...because they think linear, like your statement suggests.
If a potential partner told me he “lost” his wife, and it wasn’t followed with , in an accident, plane crash, bombing, heart attack….I’d be like……. Eeeeeeeeeeeeeeee……um….. how did you lose her? On a cruise? In the mall? Did you run away? Did she? Eeeeeeeeeeeee…… think I’ll pass……
Only because all of the evidence proves him innocent. Despite $millions, the prosecution could find no evidence of guilt. All they did was say that if you assumed he WAS guilty, and looked at the evidence in the worst light for him (which is the reverse of how a jury should work), then it hinted at guilt, sort of, maybe. That's called a lynching, not a trial.
Unfair trial. 1, 11 of the jurors badgered the 12th juror so badly he feared for his life and resigned his duties. 2 the woman that replaced him had her mind made up and committed perjury on the juror questionaire. 3, The house across the street was being burglarized, Lacy confronted them , I believe they kidnapped her. 4,The police released the evidence of where he said he went fishing long before the bodies were discovered so those thugs that had her were watching tv, saw this and poof took her there and dumped in the water.
@@edwarcandy4648 Very likely similar. BTW, many think the woman who was removed did 'research' and was removed. IMO, she felt bullied by another juror and wanted off. Her research meant nothing if she even did it and was far more innocuous than what the juror who talked to the bar man did. There was no reason to remove her. He should have been removed.
@@NoSpam1891 Look at the newest Exculpatory evidence videos with Scotts Sister or Sister in law, Dad and a few others bringing new ( old unseen by the jury) evidence to light. It is really good for Scott
@@edwarcandy4648 Yes. It's hard not to say that Geragos failed him. There was so much crap the prosecution got away with and so much that should have been explored properly. This was Geragos' first murder case and it didn't go well.
He's a married man who had an affair,. He has a history of deception. I think it's more likely that an adulterous husband is the culprit than a stranger with no motive.
Nancy Fahey you realize the Modesto police held a press conference giving away Scott’s Alibi on tv right ? “Scott was fishing here on the day of her disappearance”.
@Abundant Places i lived in one of the roughest neighborhoods in the Boston area..trust me, crime was TARGETED at certain people due to their CONNECTION with said people and not random as in what you are trying to imply
I can't believe this is even being discussed. People saw a pregnant woman walking with a dog after a neighbour had put the Peterson's dog in the backyard. It wasn't his wife.
A man was sentenced to DEATH. The only thing he was guilty of was having an affair. The country owes this man a second look at this case WITHOUT the emotion that it was over 10 years ago.
You’re cutting him too much slack here. This case is just like the O.J Case. They did it and it’s glaringly obvious, with little to no room for denial.
Kevin it was all over the news where he went fishing. Whoever killed her knew where to dump the body to make it look like Scott did it. There was evidence that the bodies weren’t in the water as long as they would have been if they’d been put there on December 24.
san francisco bay can be very dangerous for someone with a small boat, when i was in high school i remember a girl lost her father and brother when they went fishing on the bay in a small boat, and it became windy and their bodies were never found. The police searched for 2 weeks, then gave up, the sharks probably ate then
Did this guy mention that he had made cement weights just prior to Lacy's disappearance. The burglary across the street is a far cry from a pregnant woman being bound and thrown into the bay! WHY??? What motive did any random stranger have to kill Lacy and Connor? They didnt steal anything. It doesnt add up that anyone other than Scott did it. "I'm at the Eiffel Tower, its amazing". As he was on his cell phone talking to Amber at Lacys vigil.
"It's very clear in our system that we would rather let ten people who are guilty not be punished than punish one person who is not guilty." I'm a Dr. Grande fan and always appreciate the insight as well as the frequent humor. This statement at the very end demonstrates a naivete about the theory versus the reality of the American justice system. While I wish it was true, my experience tells me many in cases, and especially ones which are in the public eye, the prosecution frequently abandons the guilt/innocence aspect of a case for a "Can I get a conviction?" approach.
Very few people see somebody accused of a crime and ask: 'So, dear prosecutor, which crime are they not guilty of?' Think of every case where the person is found to be not guilty, ask if the defence team had to say anything at all. Logically if the prosecutor did not prove the case, there is no need for any defence at all. But most people expect to see all the explanations of minor facts (why did you not cry? why did the body end up in a body of water connected to where you have fished?) and if no explanations are given... then GUILTY!
I was stunned at the good doctors naïveté as well, mostly because I thought he stayed objective in his analysis only to end with that ridiculous statement. Anyone that has had to deal with a public defender knows the reality of our justice system. If you cannot afford to hire a decent defence attorney guilt or innocence no longer matters. Also it was obvious that the prosecution was very calculated and tried this case in the media to create a storm of public hatred for Scott Peterson to aid in getting the conviction. Bottom line, there was ZERO physical evidence to be used against Scott yet he was convicted. And those eleven witnesses to seeing Lacy cannot be ignored simply because they don’t fit the prosecutions timeline. Anyone of us can be imprisoned regardless of guilt or innocence in our current justice system
The entire theory of the prosecution was that Scott didn’t want to be a family man and wanted to be with Amber Frey, a woman with a child. What guy would slaughter his entire family to be with a slut with a bastard child. Makes absolutely no sense to me.
Yeah, that's not only wildly inaccurate it's enraging. I've noticed he tends to lean a little right politically sometimes. Only someone with that kind of thought process as a smart person would minimize the eagerness to lock people up for trivial things and that it's a real money making business. I mean why tf is he thinking saying that?! Does he not know we have more incarcerations by really f'ng far than any country in the world?! lol doesn't give much weight to his sentiment. I think it's also why he was generous to Jordan Peterson who's an obvious right wing grifting hack. Evan Rachel Wood whom he sided with in the Manson case is not lookin great right now. There's so much evidence that literally suggests a hoax. Hopefully he'll look into it and make another video to correct what I believe to be an incorrect opinion that made him come across naive for an objective, intellectual and mental health professional. When I first heard Manson was a pos I thought, probably. But it didn't take long to actually look into it before I formed a strong opinion, let alone made a video taking her side simply because she made claims. I'm glad he has a good take on this case and many others. I just sometimes disagree with him strongly enough to no longer binge like I initially did lol.
This scares me bc Im normally a very emotional person but when my husbands co-worker called me to tell me my hubby (who I absolutely adore) had a heart attack and was on his way to the hospital, he said later that I gave him chills bc I was so calm the whole time. I asked for details of what happened, ask which hospital, then I thanked him and hung up. I didnt have any emotional reaction for like 3 hours! Then I just broke and started balling and shaking! I never would have expected that reaction from myself🤷♀️ just goes to show diff ppl cope differently
Yeah it is scary. Putting pressure on people to "act" a certain way is just unnecessary and diverts attention away from what *actions* we can take to deal with the situation.
except Scott Peterson didn't break down 3 hours later.. He kept up the facade even to his mistress, calling her during a vigil for his wife and child... sooo there's that
That's not necessarily true. And they made his affair WAY more torrid and intense than it actually was. I watched a documentary on the case that blew mind as I always thought he was beyond guilty. I don't think so anymore. He only saw Amber in person a couple of times. His boat couldn't have carried all that weight. People saw her arguing with potential robbers of her next door neighbor. I'd continue to look into it.
@@cassondralynch6342 sorry to hear you fell for the Peterson family documentary. He saw Amber several times, for days at a time, overnight, going on hikes with her and her daughter and picking out and decorating a Christmas tree. His boat was more than capable of carrying the weight. No one saw her arguing with *burglars*. No one. The burglary ACROSS THE STREET happened on the 26th. Already proven. But the documentary didn't tell you that did they? Yes. YOU should definitely continue to look into it.
@@sophie8394 It was an A&E doc.. there were many people saying his boat would've tipped from the weight. The thing is experts often have agendas and are paid opposition. I wouldn't be shocked if he was guilty, but was shocked that there was as much reasonable doubt for me as there was after watching the series. The objectivity that Dr. Todd is showing here was far from the climate at the time and for yrs after. I wonder how the burglar story came about.. you probably know more than I do.
@@cassondralynch6342 I know what doc you're talking about. It was bought and paid for by the Peterson family. The manufacturer of Scott's boat testified as to its stability at his trial. I'm not surprised you had doubts after watching that series. That was their goal.
@@sophie8394 It's not surprising either the manufacturer of anything would testify to it's adequacy. I don't disbelieve you, but how do you know the Peterson's were behind it? None of them produced it according to IMDB.
Randy P :YOU BEING FROM MODESTO MUST ALSO KNOW THE OTHER PREGNANT WOMEN THAT WERE ABDUCTED & DISSAPEARED & ON HULU TV, " THE MURDER OF LACI PETERSON " THE TOWN IS DANGEROUS! READ MATT DALTON BOOK PRESUMED GUILTY
@@georgie6902 If you're not from here I'm not sure how you can make that statement. I lived in Modesto my entire life, and not in the best neighborhood. I wouldn't even say it's dangerous. So unless you're a gang member or committing crimes, it's very uncommon for something bad to happen to you. My AMR explorer group helped in the search efforts for Laci from day 1 and Scott was not involved at all, it was only Laci's friends and family. I also worked where she took pre natal yoga and my mentor was very close to her and tere is no doubt in any of our minds that Scott did this.
@@daughterofthemosthigh8780 I’m from Modesto, it’s a big piece of shit town. I moved to Palo Alto about 15 years ago and never looked back at that glorified meth den of city💯
he bought a fishing permit, never used the fish bait so it was proven he wasnt fishing (lol). Also bought 90 pound of cement (residues found in his boat), used a boat with a device to measure the dept of the ocean. And that’s 5% of the evidence only.
When my brother passed from suicide I was in extreme shock and denial and just felt like I was in a fog. I did not cry right off. I just couldn't consciously believe it.
Yes, sometimes it’s awhile for the experience to “sink in”. The loss is so devastating that one goes into shock & numbness immediately sets in. It really IS like becoming a zombie. You walk around seeing, hearing, but unfeeling, but remain in “autopilot” mode. At some point reality sets in & it’s like a bomb hitting the ground that breaks through the fog surrounding your brain. THEN you can cry & let everything pour out of you. Sort of like a dam breaking.
I totally agree! I lost my partner bc of suicide 8 yrs ago, and I couldn't cry at first. Instead I was talking to the cops trying to explain to them that he couldn't be dead... Not really reasonable, I know 🤷🏼♀️ I am so sorry for your loss and hope you are doing ok . Kind regards from Germany ♥️🌈
I went into shock when my father suddenly died right in front of me when I was 16. People couldn't understand why I did not cry--I felt frozen and could barely speak.
@Teresa S. I agree. I often agree with Dr Grande but not on this case. Go to Stephanie Harlowe's true crime channel. She does an excellent job of breaking this case down bit by bit and if I had any doubt before that Scott was innocent that was erased after I saw all the facts that were presented.
Dr Grande, I just started watching you and was so impressed. But u have this case totally wrong! He is so guilty! I followed the whole trial and read Ambers book. Please look at all the facts!
Scott Peterson was a fertilizer salesman. Actually he was chemical salesman, fertilizer is chemicals and those chemicals are used in the production of meth, who was probably involved with chemical sales to illicit drug producers. The manner of the investigation has appearances of a set up. Throw in the problems with selecting a jury that was ready kill him, he had no chance of a fair trial. How can you convict with circumstantial evidence that has no basis in science or logic. He needs a new trial without inclusion of the death penalty. We all know the threat of death does not deter a murderer who is confidant he will never be convicted in addition to the obvious fact that CA will never execute another inmate at San Quentin.
This guy was guilty as hell. His behavior after the fact just wasn't consistent with a person who is innocent. He was neither concerned, nor was he sad that his wife was gone. He even sold Laci's car after she disappeared. He knew she wasn't coming home. Don't even get me started on the countless lies he told throughout the investigation, as well as the fact that the bodies were discovered in the same area he was fishing. Sure, the evidence was primarily circumstantial, but it was very strong circumstantial evidence that was more than enough to convict.
Actually there is no circumstantial evidence against him. The prosecution thought they had a circumstantial case until everything was explained away at trial.
@@tankthearc9875 There was no DNA on the pliers. The pliers were tested by the States expert and, tests that Kyo conducted were negative and the pliers were too rusty to have been used in any commission of the crime according to the States expert. That testimony is available. They found a hair but it couldn't be proven to be Laci's. was found after forensics and the cadaver dog was in the boat.
So he's in love with a new woman, decides to go fishing on a 3 hour round trip for less than an hour on the water. Then comes home and his heavily pregnant wife is missing. He's talking to this new woman about starting a new life with her. He shows no emotion or worry about his missing wife and even wants to stay out of the media. Then his wife is found dumped in the same place he went fishing. That's beyond reasonable doubt.
And he added porn channels immediately to his cable. That’s weird to do so quickly! These are not reasons I think he’s guilty. He had motive ( to be with his gf). He was a proven liar. He was in the area where the remains washed ashore! What a HUGE coincidence. He had bought concrete prior, why? -to weigh her down. He ran! A non-guilty person does not run, imo, you fight to maintain your innocence. Also his disregard for his wife and unborn child is narcissistic behavior that is off the scale! He was capable of murder. I just don’t see two robbers murdering her and putting her body in the ocean....Ive never heard they had a boat? Why would they dump her body there? It just seems there are many other areas secluded enough to hide her body if they had done it. There are others reasons as well that many have mentioned to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt imo. There’s a small but loud group of people protesting that’s he’s actually innocent and I think there theories are having a slight impact on this case and so now his guilt is in doubt. If the witnesses had useful info that helped Scott why did the defense not use it? Isn’t it proper that the defense seek out these witnesses, hire their own detectives, etc. His appeals process have failed and I’m sure these witnesses were brought up at this time along with having improper defense. Also witness testimony is often very wrong, undependable. Scott was found guilty on strong circumstantial evidence. Scott is right where he belongs.
Apparently the police had his vehicle and Laci’s Land Rover wasn’t suitable for him for his work as he needed to cart and deliver stuff so he traded it in on a pickup.
@@gailmarie65 He told Laci's sister he intended to go golfing on Christmas Eve. He told two of his neighbors he went golfing. He told Laci's relative he went golfing.
The physical evidence, the GPS on his vehicle, placed him at the beach over 3 times where the bodies were found. And, that wasn't a place to fish nor hang out.
He was there because Detective Grogan told Scott, Laci was in the bay and that is where they were searching. Geragos, in his OS, revealed that Grogan called Scott on the 26th to tell him, "She's in the Bay, we're gonna find her." Geragos said that if Scott had not gone to the Bay, Grogan would have said Scott didn't care. 51 searches and not a single piece of evidence she was dumped in the bay.
@@Charlie-wl2qt No it isn't. His alibi was public. GERAGOS: Okay. Now, when you talked to Boyd Stephens, he also told you and he was the San Francisco, or still is the San Francisco Medical Examiner. He told you that in cases previously where bodies have bloated with decomposition, that they pulled as much as eighty pounds of weight up with the body surfacing in the Bay, correct? GROGAN: Yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And, once again, you gave him, and this would have been on April 2nd, of 2003. You gave him the hypothetical of the chicken wire, right? GROGAN: Yes, sir. GERAGOS: Okay. And he told you that the water flow southbound was at four knots, right? GROGAN: In one particular area we were talking about, yes. GERAGOS: Okay. And he also said that, in his opinion, thirty pound of weights would not likely be enough to cause a female of that weight, especially wrapped in plastic causing additional buoyancy in the plastic to immediately go to the bottom, correct? GROGAN: Yes, that's one of the things he said. GERAGOS: And he said victim would likely have traveled with the currents for a considerable distance before any exposed weights could catch something on the bottom, or the current would allow the object to stay in one place long enough for the weights to begin to sink in the mud. GROGAN: Yes. When talking about the Richmond Turning Basin area, there. GERAGOS: If it had made it to deeper waters, it's possible the body would still be in pristine condition, right? GROGAN: Yes, sir. GERAGOS: Thank you. I have no further questions. FLADAGER: I have, JUDGE: No. GERAGOS: That's it. JUDGE: That's it. He's only been here seven days. FLADAGER: I know. JUDGE: I say that is the last go-around. That's it.
@@aok4418 I don't know why you posted such a long comment... it doesn't it anyway contradict what I said. Scott Peterson was at the sight where the bodies were later found.
On the 26th of December there were so many media outlets posted up in front of that house, there would have been no way three burglars dragged a safe through that front yard without being noticed. I don’t know if Scott Peterson did it, all I know is that there is reasonable doubt all over this case and to put someone on death row, in this country, because of that, is beyond insane to me. He may have killed her but that’s not how our justice system works.
Since when were there 3 burglars? There were 2 burglars, Steven Todd and Donald Pearce and the burglary occurred at 3 am on the 26th. There was no media, no nothing. This wasn't even a big story yet. Here's some testimony about the condition of Covena Ave on the 26th... GERAGOS: Okay. What was the condition of the street on the 26th when you arrived shortly before 5:00 o'clock? JUDGE: With regard to traffic or vehicles? GERAGOS: Traffic, whether there were satellite trucks, whether there were police cars, whether there were people there. WEND: I don't remember any media being there, specifically. I remember some people walking around, but I was able to just drive up to the front yard of the Medina residence, got out and took the burglary report. GERAGOS: Were you in a marked patrol car? WEND: Yes, sir.
Scott is where he should be. The burgler thing was looked into and ruled out. Let it go already. Even Lacis mother knew about all this and wanted it looked into and it was ruled out. If it were true, they just so happened to kidnap Laci and follow Scott to the exact same spot he fished and dumped her body? It makes zero sense for Laci to end up where she was in the state she was in, if someone other than Scott did it. The condiction of her body matches what a body would look like being in that type of water for 4 months. She was almost skeletal except for her lower torso. Scott had the means and the motive. He isnt a fisherman but yet buys a boat just days after telling Amber his wife is "gone? Doesn't tell his father in law, (who IS a fisherman) that he got a boat and wanted to go fishing. Chooses to go 90 miles away from home to fish in dangerous waters, as a newbie bad fisherman? Tells no one before hand. Scott never once showed loss or sadness over Laci. He was trying to pick up chicks during the time Laci was missing. He was doing everything BUT showing any actual emotion of loss and sadness for his wife and unborn kid! He did it! Case close.
@@GrumpyKay There should be a retrial, there's enough reasonable doubt. They should prove it beyond doubt. There's questionable things in the bigger picture. Why would he place himself at the marina if he was dumping her, when he could have said he was anywhere else and then they wouldn't look there first. And many, many neighbors claimed to have seen Laci walking the dog. Someone DID find the dog wandering the neighborhood with a muddy leash, why would it be loose in the neighborhood with a leash on? If someone else really did it, you know how easy it would be to put the body where the husband said he was that day, since everyone was looking at him anyways, and no one had interest in looking at anyone else. The affair is obviously notable, but it's so common with men. Every crazy scenario of things can happen in this world, and it really could be that this guys wife mightve been murdered by someone else while he was having an affair. They say truth is stranger than fiction for a reason! Weird things do happen. The fact remains that there's no real solid evidence he did it. I remember a few years ago I was following the Heidi Broussard case, where she went missing with her baby. Everyone, EVERYONE was sure the husband had done something awful because he wasn't acting the way everyone wanted him to I guess. Even news reporters were eluding to his guilt. Then her body was found in her best friends trunk and everyone quietly brushed aside the whole husband blame thing. Just saying, his emotions were used to convict Scott when it's not evidence of anything. Pregnant women especially are at risk for murder for different reasons. Scotts story has never changed when others responsible for similar crimes usually admit eventually. Let's see some solid proof against Scott, cause so far there's not been any.
I’ve been told before when my fiancé passed that I was “cold” because I barely cried and would shut down like almost a shock reaction. Everyone reacts differently....
I shut down when my grandmother who raised me for 3 years before I moved to Canada died. I felt guilty about my happiness about being reunited with my parents and I could not cry. I felt like shit and I was 16 and confused about how I was supposed to feel.
Everyone reacted differently and they grieve on their own time! Now Scott is a completely different story, he was having an affair and too busy with his lies that he didn’t have time to be sad! He can’t be sad even if he try cus now he’s free..so he thought! He was trying too hard to cry during his sit down interview.
We do NOT care about you. We only care if Scott P is guilty. The evidence is overwhelming and he is guilty. His reaction to his wife gone missing is only a very small part of the circumstantial evidence. PS Never make videos about YOU.
I agree. A person in grief of anyone, especially a wife and helpless baby may react by holding in emotions which might seem like they don't care, while some wear their heart on their sleeves. However, a person in grief doesn't usually have a surge in libido (his cable bill showed a lot of xxx movies purchased & calling amber to tell her sweet nothings), lack of motivation to help look (he just stood and watxhed a lot) and quickly concluding they're not coming back by selling home and flushing your old life...🤔
@@monicapyle I disagree about the libido thing. It is well known that having sex can be a way of being totally alive, totally human, a way to reject death. I'm not a very sociable person but I shagged for Scotland after I lost my sister. I got the horn in a big way. People are both very basic and quite weird.
If you are dating someone and all you have is a cell phone number wouldn't you think there was someone else? Also, she had dated a married man in the past and would have had experience with men keeping relationships quiet.
For me, the fact that he made four (one for each limb) weights made me believe that he drowned her. Once Lacie found out about the affair, Scott would have to pay spousal/child support.
Did the state ever prove that he actually made more than one anchor? Also, I was under the impression that the state's theory held that five anchors were required (one for each limb, plus the neck). This was used by the state to explain the fact that it was only a torso that made its way to the shore. Also I've never heard that he drowned her. I'd be curious to know if you have any more information on that. One of the strangest facets of this case, to my mind, is that the state's theory required Peterson be a criminal mastermind in covering up all forensic traces of the murder (by whatever means that occurred) and also sort of an idiot in terms of his alibi and subsequent behavior. That said, I do think he's most likely guilty.
I don't know why you dismissed the hair in the pliers on his boat..it was matched from hairs in Laci's brush--with mitochondrial DNA testing. He had just bought the boat, reportedly he kept it secret from her, she hadn't been on it and there's no reason for her hair to be there. He said he was golfing at first, before admitting the bay fishing trip. Why? Also the time of the reported sightings of Laci out walking the dog came AFTER the timing of a neighbor already finding the dog running loose with leash attached (presumably it was released this way by Scott as a ruse, because of course he said Laci was going to walk the dog after he left. This way he could claim she was abducted, and indeed called Laci's mother later that day to announce "Laci's missing".) Only days after her disappearance, Scott added 2 pornographic channels to his TV, then soon after traded in her vehicle for a pickup and expressed interest in selling the home. Looks like he wasn't exactly expecting her to return does it? Ooh, but wait, I have more! He had told his girlfriend Amber Frey that he had lost his wife and this would be his first Christmas alone. Just a sad coincidence for this poor dope that she disappeared in time for Christmas? I think not. He also referred to her in past tense in Diane Sawyer interview while she was still missing, saying she "was" amazing. He also told her that he told the police of his affair the first day (nope) AND that Laci knew and was 'ok with it'. LOL on that one. Too many things add up to the conclusion the jury came to. Scott Peterson is a pathological liar and sociopath who needed his pregnant wife out of the way. Highly unlikely he is just an unlucky fool who had nothing to do with this.
If you have a pair of pliers in your vehicle and you spend any time out of doors your wife and everyone in the family will have their hair and up in the needlenose pliers. You don't have a clue how common that is.
Thank you Dr. Grande. I felt Scott was a piece of shit, but the lack of evidence doesn't convince me beyond a shadow of a doubt he killed Lacey. My gut says he did, but the lack of evidence and his conviction shows a huge problem in our justice system. It's now 'guilty until you prove you're innocent' kind of system.
I have to agree with you what bothers me is the robbery that happened the day she went missing while Laci was walking her dog and she approached them that was never investigated up until now in 2023
Burglar, Steven Todd’s, guilty plea. COURT: People care to state a factual basis for the plea? MR. DISTASO: Yes, your honor. On December 26th, 2002, in Stanislaus County, the defendant entered the inhabited dwelling located at 516 Covena Street occupied by Rodolfo Medina with the intent to commit theft. THE COURT: Steven W Todd, action 1049717, what is your plea to violation of Penal Code Section 459, a felony, first degree burglary, as alleged in Count 1 of the Complaint where *it’s alleged that on or about and between December 24 of 2002, and December 26 of 2002*, you did willingly, unlawfully, and feloniously enter an inhabited dwelling with intent to commit theft? TODD: *Guilty*.
@@sophie8394 it did not happen on the 26th. Their street was crawling with tv crew from 3am on. The police ignored or dismissed any exculpatory evidence. Like eye witness testimony of Laci at the boat. (It wasn’t a secret murder purchase.) They got tunnel vision.
I’ve noticed the police always say the guy charged acted guilty or looked like he wasn’t stressed by the missing person. In a recent case, the officer said the guy didn’t act distressed and seemed to be faking it when he found his dead son. Then I heard a recording of the same guy making wierd guttural wails that sounded like a lung shot elk and a torture victim recorded together. I know from combat that everyone reacted differently to the mutilated bodies and especially the ones still making noises or screaming like a gut shot rabbit. In any case, the recording was anything but the “wasn’t reacting “ testified in court. The police lie in court every time we have proof of what they say. They’re always going to say the suspect acted guilty.
I think it is OK for the police to "feel" that someone reacts suspiciously as a trigger for further investigation. But it seems wrong to base a conviction on this type of suspicion.
Yeah I remember that when my mom broke the news that my cousin who was a year older than me died. It hit me like a stack of bricks usually when something like that happens I just stand there with zero emotions and I process what I just heard. Then a couple days later my grandma dies and same thing just trying to figure out what happened like a delayed reaction. But when I went to my cousin’s funeral I just couldn’t do it anymore and just started to cry.
I think you've overlooked Scott calling Amber during a ceremony for Lacey and saying he was in Paris. He took no interest in finding her and the police do have their spidey senses, as unscientific as that may be, they're often right. He got rid of her car, he was dead cold about her. She was gone and he washed her out of his hair right away.
I am a skeptic, a logical person who tries not to emotion cloud my analysis and judgement. I love your vids because they look at all these subjects in a likewise manner. No dramatic music, no quote mining and no emotional outbursts from family and friends. This is very refreshing (even when many might not think as interesting).
What’s crazy is if this happened today every house would have cameras, we would know what day for sure the house was robbed across the street and when Laci was last seen walking the dog. Case would be solved in 5 min. This case drives me crazy because it seems obvious that he did it, especially the home made anchors and no rope. Just wish it was a rock solid case
One thing I forgot to mention before is that the media announced the location where Scott was fishing the day that Lacey went missing. I want to say that they announced the exact coordinates, but it's been so long ago that I can't remember if they just gave an approximate location or if they gave the exact location. Anyway, I remember when I saw this I couldn't believe it. They gave this information to the whole country, so if someone had Lacey held kidnapped or something like that they could have just thrown her right in the bay knowing that her husband was going to take the rap for their crime. At that time the media had already deemed Scott guilty. I couldn't believe that the media would be so irresponsible as to announce that information. I always wondered why this wasn't brought up in court and presented before the jury. In my humble opinion the fact that anybody could have tossed that body there provides some reasonable doubt right there.
They said he was fishing in the SFB. Do you have any idea the size of the area? And you think someone could have just gone and dumped her body when the bay was crawling with LE searching for Laci? Get real.
I lived through this case while living a few streets away from the Peterson house at the time. It was a crazy experience seeing all those media trucks in our city for so long. There is no doubt in my mind that Scott is guilty. He had so many motives - not wanting children, his mistress, money - just one would be enough. The eye witnesses who claim she walked her dog that day do nothing for me. Eye witnesses are notoriously unreliable. They could havd been remembering a different day or simply have seen someone else. In order to believe that he is innocent, you have to believe that someone else did it. Someone completely unrelated to both of them. Who? Why? They would have had to take her without anyone seeing them and have left zero evidence behind. Then they would have had to hold onto her body long enough to learn where Scott had been that day so they could go drop her body in the same place. I don't recall exactly how long that was, but he originally said he went golfing. They would have had to hold her for a while, anticipating his story changing. It's just too much. The evidence against him is too much to overcome and the alternative is too outlandish. He did it. He deserves to be where he is.
So why was her jewelry pawned by some random person ? Why is there no dna evidence ? What about the burglary that occurred ? What about the police giving away Scott’s alibi on tv? What about a corrections officer hearing a jail convo between random people about a lady, a baby , and a robbery? Circumstantial evidence works in a lot of cases. In this one it’s just tunnel vision. Did he cheat on his wife and say dumb shit, yes but the burglary and time stamps from the mailman and neighbors leave me thinking this case had tunnel vision from day one.
Well said! I think you have to have more faith to believe Scott Peterson is innocent than to believe all the circumstantial evidence pointing to his guilt
@@davidgravey1998 not sure where you are getting that the jewelry was pawned by someone other than Laci. The only jewelry I can find that was pawned, was pawned by Laci and Scott. They all testified to this at trial. In fact, jewelry is just another notch in the guilty column. The necklace that Laci wore was one she did not like to remove. So why would she have gone for a walk that morning without having that on or the ring she was wearing in place of her wedding ring that was being altered? Obviously Scott removed the jewelry from her dead body because it was valuable and he wanted to keep it. The burglary was ruled out as being at all related very early in the investigation. A jail conversation overheard? They could literally have been talking about anything - this case or anything else. Or the person overhearing misunderstood. I have no knowledge of this supposed conversation, but it is meaningless when everything else is so solid. What DNA evidence are you wanting? Back then, touch DNA wasn't used back then. So what DNA were they supposed to find and where? If he strangled her, there would not be any blood. I don't understand why anyone would think that Scott has any possibility of innocence. He did it. He is the only one that had means, motive, and opportunity. Pregnant women who are murdered, are murdered by their partners. Not by random strangers.
@@Karamarika burglary is ruled out bc police lied about the day of the event, if that happened on the day police claimed they had, no way all those media cars on the neighbourhood didnt catch the burglary taken placed. and there are witness saw Lacy arguing with two males too
I would suggest anyone interested in this case goes to Stephanie Harlowe's channel and watch the 3-part series she did on this case. She goes deep into this case.
You are missing a lot here. 1) He said to the lover that he was single, they met 6 days after the wife's disappearance and when she confronted him, he told that he "lost" his wife. 2) he didn't repport that the wife (pregnant!) was missing, it was her stepfather that did it). 3) He didn't show intresse in participating of the searches 4) He had a secret boat (nobody knew that he bought it) 5) he changed the colour of his hair and tried to scape... and many many other details that just add upp.
But that is all circumstantial "evidence" which is not what Dr. Grande is covering in this video. He is discussing the lack of hard evidence. I think it's incredibly likely that Scott did it, but because there is pretty much zero physical evidence, it's problematic that he was convicted to death beyond a reasonable doubt.
You got 3/5 of the points factually incorrect. It’s ok, that’s only 2/5 correct = 40% that definitely enough proof to put someone in prison without reasonable doubt, no problem. Laci knew about the boat, she was there at the warehouse the day before and he never escaped to Mexico. It is nothing but speculation that he was going to escape, he stated he wanted to get away from the media which is a valid excuse if you consider how ruthless the media was towards him.
@@RiceBowl510 misinformation. He attempted cross the board, changed the colour of his hair. Everything can be explained when one want...but not everything is plausible.
@@MartineH1 sorry that’s just not true. He never tried to cross the boarder, it’s speculation that he tried to. He was in San Diego where he grew up and his family lived and he was living out of his car and planning to play golf that day
Laci's body was found exactly where Scott was that day. There might as well be a confession this case is so obvious. Beyond all the circumstantial evidence of Scott lying repeatedly claiming Laci knew about the affair and didn't really care, Laci was told by doctors stay off her feet but she was walking the dog alone on dodgy terrain? Scott also tried to hide the boat initially and told people he was golfing to avoid suspicions around people finding out he bought a boat and his wife has disappeared at the same time. There's also 5 imprints of homemade concrete anchors near the boat and only 1 anchor found in the boat. The fishing lure he claimed to have used was still in the original package. And then there's the mistress, who was told his wife was missing 2 weeks before going missing.. Suspiciously on the exact same day that he bought his secret boat. And he just happened to take the secret boat out for the first time after checking current reports, 90 miles away while Laci was being murdered? . The only strange thing about the case is the burglary up the street, which isn't all that odd considering most burglaries happen over holiday periods when people are away, and the burglars were both drug addicts so it's doubtful they left no evidence of forced entry, no evidence of a struggle, blood/DNA/Fingerprints or anything like they did in the burgled house.
One other thing, well maybe two. The fishermen at the doc said they hadn't seen a boat that small go fishing thrre at that spot. Sharon was not aware he had a boat. Lacy did not know he had purchased a boat... what? in the days right before her murder. All roads lead to Scott. His actions are what convicted him not behavior....there is a difference.
the baby theme for Connor's/Logan's room was NAUTICAL themed.... People who like nautical THEMES, generally love the ocean/love to sail maybe fish etc... gee what a fucked up thing to buy a boat and go fishing. 🤦♀️ what IS fucked up though is the dumbass police releasing the information of Scott's alibi/whereabouts the morning of Laci's disappearance... FUN FACT: THE ALIBI A MURDERER GIVES IS TO separate THEM FROM THE CRIME SCENE! derp de derp!
You’re leaving out the fact that he was telling Amber that he was in Paris while at the vigil, also he told her that he was a widower before he (allegedly) killed them. Also let’s not forget that he made Conner’s room a “storage” room to dump whatever, soon after they disappeared... With all my respect, I think you’re being way too conservative in your analysis. Cheers from a fan :)
liar and murderer are two different things.... but if a cheat gets caught in his own web.... (Do not be deceived. God will not be made a fool. For a person will reap what he sows, Gal 6:7)
It's interesting how you decide something like guilt or not in some unrelated objective questions by how you feel about lying and cheating in some relationship. You're one of the reasons why, if I was on trial for a crime I didn't commit, I'd try to keep every woman off my jury.
@@inTruthbyGrace So... what is your lesson here? If he was cheating in sexual relationships then its just fine if he gets mistaken as the murderer and jailed for life. Warped!
@@jonathandewberry289 Had he not been cheating, he wouldn't have been punished. Bottom line. He wouldn't have even looked guilty. His own personal sin condemned him.
I agree with you. He could be guilty, but I don't think we have enough /actual/ evidence to give him the death penalty. His behavior is odd, but a personality shouldn't be considered evidence.
it's not his personality that tells us he's guilty. it's his behavior and that sure as fuck can tell us he's guilty. Example, innocent people don't get fake documents in their brother's name to escape to mexico
@@sl7883 that's speculation why he did that though. If he's feeling like the police have decided he's the only option and wont look elsewhere he would also try and escape. That's also speculation though, we'll never know his motive unless he confesses to everything, which even then could be coerced by police. Does it look suspicious? Yes. Like most of the things he did. But I still wouldn't call it evidence.
@@flannelpower14 : not every capitol punishment execution is a slam dunk like "the rape & murder of a 90 year old Nun, with a minimum of 3 stab wounds". I've heard law enforcement comment before, about "circumstantial evidence" being ironclad more than we think it does.
Personality isn't something people can ignore, so of course jurors are going to consider it, whether they mean to or not. I'm sure those jurors easily noticed that Scott was a narcissist, a compulsive liar, low on empathy, and someone who cheats and hides things. How can this kind of personality not factor into another person's judgment and intuition?
IDK if you watched the event from the very beginning but I did. The guy is guilty as sin! His actions (or rather, inactions) and his words (including those he did not speak) spoke volumes! You will NEVER convince me he was not guilty. And it wasn’t just a little lie here or a little one there - it was lie after lie after LIE he told. Even the way his parents treated the Rocha family (from Sharon Rocha’s book “For Lacy”) spoke volumes. There is a pretty major character flaw that runs through that family. I am not a “blood is thicker than water” kind of gal - if you’re guilty, I will call you out even if you are my first born.
To everyone in the comments who is saying that it doesn't matter because he is guilty anyway: It does matter! Even if this man did it, it's not fair to convict him on the basis of fabricated and circumstancial evidence. I would rather have guilty people free than the risk of one innocent being imprisoned because of stuff like this.
Even if cops judged him right away on his reaction to her missing it wasn't the only thing they were looking at. The spouse is always intensely looked at and with good reason.
The police investigated Scott and found nothing. They ignored crucial leads and sightings that pointed elsewhere. That is tunnel vision. Don't stick up for the MPDs lies and botched investigation.
Scott might have found telling potential mistresses he is a widower makes him more appealing and approachable and what happened later in life was a coincidence.
He debated between a "last minute" fishing trip or 18 rounds of golf and chose fishing; which was more financially sensible since he purchased the two day fishing permit four days earlier on Dec. 20 and the pass was on the final day(good only on Dec. 23&24) being Dec.24.
“Never lied”. Are you serious? He lied repeatedly, including on national television! He told LaCies family he was going golfing. How can you say with any seriousness he didn’t lie?
This analysis of Grande's was a joke. He just parroted defense arguments that were descriptions of hearsay which was never presented in trial. To say that SP didn't lie shows you he knows nothing about this case.
Saying that he intended to go golfing...just because he changed his mind later doesn't mean he was lying at the time. Was there some other lie, besides the lies regarding the affair? I think Grande was specifically talking about his alibi that morning.
@@Somegirl811 But when her dad called 911, he said that his son in law was out golfing that day, though. Which means Scott lied about his activities of the day, on the day.
Oh God. They're gonna speculate a bout this forever. Scott won't get acquitted of anything unless Laci appears alive someday. His own half sister says she knows he's guilty.
I knew Peterson was lying when he said he went sturgeon fishing. I lived in that area at the time plus I did a lot of sturgeon fishing. It was a horrible day for fishing which I remember well because it made me change my plans to do the same. He didn't have the right tackle onboard for the type of fishing he claimed to be doing. On top of that, any experienced fisherman would not have spent the day fishing on the bay under those weather conditions, in a small aluminum boat.
He told several other people he was golfing and not fishing at all. He said fishing because people seen him at the ramp so he had to change his story on the fly. He called lady's mom and told her she was missing without asking any questions or even looking for her.
The prosection presented nothing but circumstantial evidence, not one single piece of direct evidence. Scott should not have been found guilty. Had Amber Frey kept their affair secret, Scott would not have been found guilty. He was found guilty solely based on the affair he had with Amber, nothing else. In no way, shape of form does an affair prove murder.
The Family annihilator is a repeated story. I can see Scott clearly as an Annihilator. There's the typical narcissistic motive at play. The lies. He is soooo guilty. You should look into family annihilators and give us your take on it.
Wow, if I kill someone so that I can go screw around, you know, cause a husband might be inconvenient for my narcissistic endeavors, I want this guy as my mental health character witness on the stand.
Hell, Robert Blake was at the scene alone with the body and the murder weapon and he didnt get convicted haha. I feel bad for this guy if he is innocent. I dont think he is, but he could be, and thats the problem.
@@Scorch428 If he is innocent then he would be incredibly stupid and unlucky. I do not believe he is stupid at all. I think he is highly intelligent. I believe he's a malignant narcissist. And guilty as hell.
Dr Grande- I was pregnant at the same time as Lacey Peterson and lived in the same area so I followed this case very closely at the time. He had a receipt as an alibi that placed him at the point where her body was found. There’s a lot of info you didn’t cover - missing concrete anchors, and so much more. The evidence was largely circumstantial but overwhelmingly showed that he very likely did do it. Of course everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but mine won’t change, new trial or not.
But it also needs to be mentioned that the media widely circulated Scott's alibi & his fishing spot long before Laci & Connor were found there. Any other killer would then know where to dump the remains. Additionally, a doctor testified during the trial that he believed Connor's remains to be at 9 months development, when Laci went missing at 8 months. She could have been alive for up to a month after her disappearance while the cops & press were only looking at Scott & tracking his every move. If that is true, it rules him out entirely. They also don't even know how she died (let alone when). And the importance of the robbery that happened right by Laci when she went missing cannot be overstated. It's a miscarriage of justice that they didn't pursue it. It's also a miscarriage of justice that the state sentenced someone to death on very little circumstantial evidence & a high amount of reasonable doubt. Thinking he is/could be guilty is one thing - actually convicting him & sending him to death row is another. It's scary that the state won.
Whit B - Good point and true. I’m not a scientist but I think the medical examiner found that she’d been submerged in the Bay for quite some time...animal activity, etc. Not that someone else couldn’t have done it, but if she’d been there from day 1 or 2 of her disappearance, then his alibi puts him there. That’s what’s incriminating.
also, Laceys coat was still at the house and all her shoes were there ..he drove the dog w/ a leash to the park on the way to dump his wife's body ...btw lacey was found in the clothes she was wearing when she went to get her haircut the 23 rd ..the previous night to Christmas eve ..not the cloths Scott said she wore Christmas eve ...she did not take the dog for a walk barefoot w/ no coat
@@whitb850 your talking about a PAID witness for the defense who offers "his professional opinion" that ... blah-blah-blah *could* be the actual facts in the case. That and $5.29 will get you a cup of espresso at Starbucks...
Watch the ABC interview where Scott said Laci "was" and quickly corrected himself and said "is". He knew she was not coming home and a little bit of truth slipped out.
Is this damning evidence to put a man behind bars? What about the 11 eye witnesses that saw laci after Scott left? Did they see a ghost or perhaps another pregnant with the same exact dog breed in this small neighborhood?
I'm definitely not saying Scott is innocent, but caution should be exercised when trying to analyze behavior. Any credible behavioral scientist will tell you that there are no "absolutes" when it comes to "tells". It's a fallacy. A baseline of an individuals typical behavior and speech pattern needs to be established prior to analyzing them. Using past tense is something to note, but on its own, it does not prove anything as there are other factors that could explain why someone would do that. These kind of observations can be effective tools to utilize in investigations or interrogations. Not as definitive evidence of guilt or innocence.
This is one case that I totally disagree with Dr. Grande. There were a bunch more "coincidences?" that he doesn't address. Too many to go into here--- its all public info. But if the things he mentioned were the ONLY elements of the prosecution's case, then of course he thinks Mr. Peterson is innocent. This is the danger of trying to address something that you aren't particularly qualified for. As a psychologist, this guy is AWESOME. As an "arm chair Sherlock" I think even he will admit ( and does, that it's just his opinion) that he only addresses one or two facts from the trial. You can be unbiased, and still be wrong. Still, as a psychologist, dude knows his stuff.
Yep, Dr. Grande is way out of his depth here. Reminds me a bit of his criticism of Dr. Phil, that Dr. Phil is not qualified to do the things he does (which is true) - problem is that the same is true with Dr. Grande whenever he tries to second guess investigators or juries using incomplete information and speculation. Not great. His psychological profiles are always great though and very interesting.
@@kita3256 You can find and watch Grande's video on Phil for a longer explanation. But basically, Phil's license expired many, many years ago, basically when he chose to become an entertainer, rather than a mental health practitioner.
This was a classic case of trial by media. There was literally no physical evidence to support his guilt and many interviews were not conducted that may of proved a correct timeline. Scott is guilty of being an arsehole but that doesn’t mean he is a murderer. My hope is he gets a new trial now the Innocence project have picked up his case.
It's all the things Scott did: ordered porn while they were searching for Laci, selling lacis vehicle, turning the nursery into a storage room, telling Amber he's in France when he's at a vigil for Laci, lacis body turning up right where Scott went fishing in a boat no one knew he bought, telling Amber he lost his wife before she was lost, that solidifies Scott's guilt.
God help you if you do all those things and someone else kills your wife.
Just a thought, but could he have thought his wife found out about the affair and left. Maybe hoping he would follow her. I don't know, but people do all sorts of stupid things. A friend of mine left her family for a couple of weeks and didn't tell anyone where she was. Her husband called the cops after 3 days, no one thought she was dead or anything. But it was allot of drama. I don't know anything about these 2 people, so I can't say what either of them would be capable of. Just a thought.
@Paul Avery Laci knew about it.
GERAGOS: Detective, she specifically told you that Ron, that Laci did not like Ron Grantski, as she called him, said Sharon's boyfriend, correct?
GROGAN: That's what she said.
GERAGOS: She said Laci doesn't like him. She didn't want her mother or he to know about the affair at all. Isn't that what she told you?
GROGAN: That's what she told me.
GERAGOS: She said that, said Laci was very adamant about that. That's why he protected that, instead of being up front and that kind of thing; is that correct?
GROGAN: That's what she said.
GERAGOS: She said that Scott said that Laci was extremely, or very pissed off. That's what he told her, right?
GROGAN: Yes.
GERAGOS: And that the, and they were going to get through it, but that she was, Laci was upset, right?
GROGAN: Yes.
GERAGOS: And she said that Scott said that Laci had insisted they not tell the parents about it, correct?
GROGAN: Yes, that's what Ann said.
GERAGOS: And you said that Laci was pissed off, but they had been through it before, correct? And said her answer was, right, she was not happy. But he said, you know, they talked it over, you know. They were going to, going to get through it. They were looking forward to Conner being born. She went on. It was kind of putting it on the back burner; is that correct?
GROGAN: Yes, that's what she said.
GERAGOS: Then you specifically asked, I'm at 36929, about the fact of what else Scott talked about, correct?
GROGAN: Yes.
GERAGOS: Okay. And you were, and this was an investigative technique that you used with a lot of witnesses. Have you talked to Scott Peterson? What did he say? How did he look, correct? Did this with a lot of his friends. For instance, Aaron Fritz, Mike Richardson, Greg Reed. That was something that both you and Detective Brocchini were doing, correct?
GROGAN: All those people were interviewed. And I think I have talked to some of them myself, yes.
GERAGOS: Some of them have been talked to by other of the Core Detectives in the group, correct?
GROGAN: Correct.
GERAGOS: And when you asked her about what else he talked about. She said he just keeps hoping and praying that she's, that she'll appear. That she said, I did know he sold Laci's car because the locks didn't work on it. He said when the police went through the car, through her car, the locks were damaged. And he wanted, I think, Brent to bring the car back, or have it fixed, or something. That what they told you?
GROGAN: That's what they told me.
GERAGOS: She said that he said, that Laci called the car a piece of shit, and hated the car, correct?
GROGAN: Yes.
GERAGOS: Okay. And she actually wanted the same car that Ann has; is that correct? Is that right?
GROGAN: Yes.
GERAGOS: And she said that they had been shopping around for a different car, and that he needed to turn that car in for those reasons; and, also, because he needed a truck, and he had asked several times to get his truck back, and he couldn't get it back, right?
GROGAN: Correct.
GERAGOS: Okay. And you know that at that point you still had the truck, correct?
GROGAN: Yes.
GERAGOS: Now, you also had an interview with Sharon Rocha and Ron Grantski on December 29th of 2002, correct? I'm looking at 2212 Bates stamp.
FLADAGER: 2212?
GROGAN: Yes, I did.
GERAGOS: During that interview with Sharon Rocha and Ron Grantski you learned, and you talked to two, just the two of them, right?
GROGAN: Yes.
GERAGOS: And you learned then that Laci did want a larger home and a new vehicle, correct?
GROGAN: Yes.
GERAGOS: In fact, I had asked you about this on Thursday, one of the tips you received on the tip line in May was from a real estate broker in San Luis Obispo; is that correct?
GROGAN: This is a tip? This is May, 2003.
GERAGOS: Tip came in in May, 2003, about something that occurred back in May of 2002, correct?
GROGAN: Yes. This is a tip that is written in a report by Detective Brocchini.
GERAGOS: Okay. I'm asking, did this tip involve a real estate broker from San Luis Obispo who specifically had had conversations with Laci Peterson in May of 2002?
GROGAN: I'm not familiar with that.
GERAGOS: With this report?
FLADAGER: Do you have a Bates stamp, Mr. Geragos?
GERAGOS: Bates stamp is 22363.
GROGAN: Yes.
GERAGOS: 369. I'm sorry. Were you aware of the fact that Laci had been calling a broker in San Luis Obispo about relocating there?
GROGAN: If I was told that, I don't remember it right now.
GERAGOS: You know there has been testimony in this case, and I believe specifically some of the, in some of the reports about Scott selling the car. Didn't you also call Sharon Rocha and tell her when the car was sold?
GROGAN: Yes, I did.
GERAGOS: Okay. Didn't she tell you at the time that the car had no sentimental value to her?
GROGAN: I don't recall if she said that or not.
GERAGOS: Okay. I'll find a report at the break. I'll show it to you this afternoon. When you were talking to Ann Bird, specifically in that same tape recorded interview, you talked about Amber, correct? Look at 36930.
GROGAN: Yes.
GERAGOS: Okay. And she said that Scott admitted that he had screwed up and that he had made a huge mistake, correct?
GROGAN: Yes.
GERAGOS: And, specifically, you also asked why it was that, you were asking about the fact that he had an attorney; is that correct? Scott had an attorney?
FLADAGER: Do you have the Bates stamp?
GERAGOS: 36932. At the top of the page you are asking, I think Jackie, I'm sorry, Bird, Ann Bird's asking, I think Jackie said that a policeman told her they should get an attorney. She was completely alarmed; is that right?
GROGAN: That's what Ann said.
GERAGOS: You said you didn't know about that. You certainly didn't tell them you needed an attorney. Then she said, yeah, I think Jackie said they were alarmed and so they hired an attorney. Jackie and Lee did, correct?
GROGAN: That's what Ann said, yes.
GERAGOS: And there was talk about who the lawyer was, correct?
GROGAN: Correct.
GERAGOS: Okay. And then you specifically started talking to her about what the media had done; is that correct? Bottom of the page.
GROGAN: Yes.
GERAGOS: Okay. I did find the portion, Bates number 395, about when you phoned Sharon and said that Scott had sold the Land Rover, where it was located. Sharon told you that the vehicle did not have sentimental value to her, correct?
GROGAN: Yes. That particular item did not.
GERAGOS: The car did not have sentimental value?
GROGAN: Correct.
GERAGOS: That was, if I understand correctly, when Miss Fladager had asked you about you brokering some of the belongings back and forth. That was that same conversation, correct?
GROGAN: I think so, yes.
GERAGOS: Okay. And she said that there was, Sharon said the vehicle didn't have any sentimental value, but she wanted the baby's belongings, the crib, Laci's photographs, two Tiffany lamps, correct?
GROGAN: Yes.
GERAGOS: And that was on, some time on January 31st?
GROGAN: I believe that's accurate.
GERAGOS: And so that's when you called up, I believe Miss Fladager asked you. You called up Scott; is that correct? And I'm looking at what's got 334. You received an e-mail which had been forwarded to you from Sharon, correct?
GROGAN: Yes.
GERAGOS: Okay. And Sharon had asked that she wanted the photographs of Laci as well as some Tiffany lamps and some items from the nursery, correct?
GROGAN: Yes.
GERAGOS: And in that e-mail, Scott, it was apparently an e-mail between Sharon and Scott, right, that had been forwarded to you?
GROGAN: I don't know. Is it attached there?
GERAGOS: I don't think that it was. But maybe it is. Let's see if it's the next page. Is that it?
GROGAN: Yes.
GERAGOS: Okay. And specifically on this e-mail that was forwarded to you, Scott apologizes. Says, I have never taken the opportunity to apologize, addressed to mom, correct?
GROGAN: Correct.
GERAGOS: "I have never taken the opportunity to apologize to Ron or yourself for lying to you about my infidelity to Laci," correct?
GROGAN: Yes.
GERAGOS: "I'm truly sorry I was not forthcoming with you immediately. I know both of our goals is to find Laci and Conner. I'm hoping together we can do that more than separate." Correct?
GROGAN: Yes.
GERAGOS: And then the last paragraph, "I receive
kinda like casey anthony did all the wrong things even searched suffocation but was found not guikty,
He's going to carry on a relationship with Amber, yet he's already told her he lost his wife. So given that, how does Scott eventually explain to Amber
"oh yeah, by the way, the wife I Said I lost, it was just Christmas Eve that she went missing, oh and she was pregnant. You still good to go Amber?"
It was a fling. Why do you think he told Amber he was going to be away for the holidays. Because he knew he would be with his family. That's why!
December 19 Amber runs into the estranged wife of Dave Giardanelli-a woman that, according to Giardanelli, had died of a heart condition.
He didn't turn Conner's room into a storage room. January 13, 2003, Scott gave notice to the landlord for the Tradecorp warehouse. Scott indicated in his Notice to Vacate that he would be out of the warehouse by February 12. Scott made arrangements for the Tradecorp product to be warehoused at a distribution center and he rented a storage unit on January 27 to store all the office equipment, furniture and some personal items from the warehouse.
Three chairs from Scott’s office have been rolled into the nursery, and on top of the rocking chair is the red and blue bedding from the second bedroom. Scott brought the items home from the warehouse that did not fit in the storage unit. just like other items from the warehouse that didn't fit into the storage unit were brought home and store in different areas of the home.
Lacy Peterson's mother Sharon Rocha was the most sympathetic victim I've ever seen. I'll never forget her screaming into the microphone saying "They didn't deserve to be thrown away as if their lives had meant nothing!"- Broke my heart.
Yes, she was so excited to be a grandmother and I was devastated for her that Scott took that away from her. I don't care whether Scott hated Laci or not, he had no right to hurt Sharon Rocha like this.
@@PPLL463 that's because no actual evidence was there. She wants to catch the real murderer. Know your facts. You sound naive.
@@PPLL463 Yes some of them were.
Innocent people get convicted. That is a fact.
A jury of your peers means impartial. Innocent until proven guilty.
RICHELLE NICE
(1) denied ever participating in a lawsuit,
(2) denied ever testifying as a
witness and
3) denied ever being the victim of a crime.
In November of 2000 when she 4 1/2 months pregnant, she swore under oath that "acts of violence" were committed against her to "fear for her unborn child".
In Nov 2001 when she was pregnant with a different child, acts of domestic violence including battery and cruelty to a child were committed against her and her young child by her boyfriend who pled no contest to criminal charges.
Greg Beratlis signed a declaration quoting RN regarding her statements about getting Scott for what he did to Laci and "little man" (Conner)
Steve Cardosi another juror signed a declaration for the habeas stating Richelle spoke to jurors about the woman who had been harassing her.
She wrote Scott over two dozen letters to Scott while he was in prison.
She was willing to forgo months of pay to serve the jury even though her employer could only pay two weeks.
@@sarab6842 she knows the real murderer is right where he belongs.
@@jwait1496 still posting this crap huh?
I don’t know: who has a missing wife and trades in her car before knowing if she’s dead or not? Who whistles a “whew” when their mother-in-law says no body was found in the bay search? Who changes their hair color, gathers money, etc and heads to the border? Who has a map to the mistress and a burying kit in the back of the car? Who buys a little boat and keeps it secret? Who makes anchors that go missing? Who tells father in law he went golfing then changes story to fishing. Who has a dead wife and baby pop up exactly where he said he was? What father tells someone he was hoping for infertility. Who talks to his mistress at a gathering for his missing wife. Here’s your real motive: he did not want to be a husband and father. He did this. One of the leading causes of death for pregnant women in America? Murder. This is one of those cases. The fact he hadn’t done violence before is not a good argument. That can be said of many. Chris Watts comes to mind at the moment.
I love what you wrote. I agree with you 100% until you get to motive. I have just started looking into the case and was shocked to see Scott’s salary. I am not trying to be a jerk, but I live in a modest house in Metro Atlanta and don’t have any of the things he had, but my family’s salary is 3X his and Lacie’s. He was also going to get fired. He was not a great sales person. The company was going under and didn’t have the capital to continue. Lacie had financial windfalls that supported the family (one from a beloved grandmother who left Lacie over $100k). I believe that not wanting Lacie and getting control of her money was the motivation. If she had no money he may not have been motivated enough. Regards.
Yea, don't forget testimony that Laci stopped going for walks because she was too pregnant. Scott would rather be on death row than change a diaper, bottom line.
Timothy Bryan What!
Wires all crossed... You obviously don't follow the case.... Your going by what you heard on TMZ....
Joan Marie Never watch TMZ. By the way, it is “you’re” not “your.” I followed the case very closely. I have my information directly from the parents of Lacey and the detectives who worked the case. They are featured on a very reputable documentary. What wires do I have crossed, specifically.
The guy didn't have a boat and didn't fish before. He buys a boat, goes boating FOR THE FIRST TIME the morning his wife disappears, and then his wife's body is found in the same body of water where he went boating. What are the odds? Please, instead of getting bogged down with the details of the trial, look at the big picture with some good old common sense.
We’re there any witnesses of Scott transporting a large body like figure or hiding a figure like that in his boat? No. In fact there’s multiple witnesses seeing Scott at the dock and reported he had no abnormal behavior at all. So it seems like Scott was able to transport this body on to his boat in broad daylight with 0 eye witnesses seeing a body like figure in his boat or transporting it?
@@RiceBowl510 There were no witnesses seeing Chris Watts kill his family either. Usually murderers hide the bodies of their victims, it's not like they're going to be showing off their trophies. A body on the bottom of the boat, covered by a piece of tarp would not be visible from probably ten yards away.
@@LaVidayElTristeFinal Ok valid arguemnet, but does it make any sense that Scott is going to kill his wife at 9:30am, then by 9:48am already have her body wrapped in a tarp and in his truck in the span of 18 minutes, then proceed to stop at his warehouse where he “sent chrismas greeting to his boss and looked up instructions on how to assemble a wood working tool he just got in the mail with his dead wife in his truck? Scott doesn’t seem like a calculated cold blooded killer. He is the opposite, a man with a credited degree from Cal Poly and a social, well liked person who is soft spoken. There is no history of rage or anger in his life which points to the opposite of his alleged behavior. Sure he was a cheater and womanizer, but for the media to grab upon these behaviors and crucify him for it is unjust.
@@LaVidayElTristeFinal also, although Chris watts and Scott’s cases are similar, Chris killed his wife and kids in the early hours of the day and drove out to the oil tanks far before sunrise. Scott was beleive to kill his wife in his home then transport her body in broad daylight. Although he’s not showing it off like a trophy, you still have to take out a 150 pound body and transport it into a boat in broad daylight, then drive past all the other boat docks with other ppl. There are witnesses stating that they didn’t see any tarps or large figures in Scotts boat while at the dock
@@RiceBowl510: The guy had already told his mistress, days earlier, that he had lost his wife. And then he loses her for real. You can question individual pieces of the puzzle. But when you put them together, a very clear image emerges.
And again, what are the odds that the body of his wife will be floating in the very same place where he went boating?
If I don't know where my husband is and i call his relatives, i ask if they've seen him. I don't say he's missing. There was no reason to think she was missing.
Unless you already know that she isn't coming back!"
I would say someone is missing if I was looking for them
Thank you. If I had been away from my husband and kids 12 hours and came home to them gone, my first thought would be that they are visiting family not missing. He also didn’t call her to ask where she was.
All of his behavior and the evidence points to Scott. If he’s innocent he is the most unlucky man by a lot.
@@nicolai6161 but that doesn't mean they ARE missing just because you are looking for them. They could be right around the corner.
@Susan Fudge.. And Scott didn't even call the police to report her "missing". He called her parents and THEY reported it. That's another reason the police were suspicious of him from the start. Then he called his girlfriend Amber Frey on New Years Eve a few days later and told her that he was in Paris watching a wonderful fireworks show when actually he was at a candlelight vigil for his missing wife. I believe he is an "evil" man, if there is such a thing, or at least a narcissistic sociopath/ psychopath---he and Chris Watts could be brothers. They are both narcissistic and they both have sociopathic behavior.
Didn’t Scott tell Amber he lost his wife before she actually went missing? That’s quite a coincidence...
'Yes, but there are different ways of losing your wife'
sa Scott cried when he said to amber he lost his wife therefore s logical assumption is through death
Kasia yes not everybody that intimates that their wife died, also not everybody who purchases a boat the day after saying that or the same day, not everybody’s wife lands up dead in the same place as where the boat landed up, not everybody reacts the way he did, not everybody etc etc no single piece of evidence is overwhelming but the accumulation thereof - he did it
A coincidence is something that's not planned or arranged but seems like it is. Technically, a coincidence is an occurrence of events that happen at the same time by total accident.....
So what?
It might literally just be a coincidence.
I mean the death sentence is a HELL of a deal if it were merely a coincidence. COINCIDENCES do occur, that's why there's a name for it.
If that's all it takes to convict and sentence to death, people should have their heads examined.
I personally think most people are lacking in intelligence to be a part of juror duty. Their not smart enough to understand reasonable doubt. So many times there have been cases that should have been NOT GUILTY via reasonable doubt. Doesn't mean he didn't do it. But we should be able to prove it more than an affair, an a coincidence, and a feeling.
But that's people, authority says he did it, so he did it. Especially if it's a young woman. Rarely will someone be acquitted of a charge of murder when it's a young attractive woman. Even with pathetic evidence.
@Winnie the Wine Mom
so why dont you chang your jurstic system which cleary show that it does not work ??? and the thing that i dont understand has an outsider is this why in hell is Casey Anthony and oj simpson and many others like them with stronge evidence against them are set free and Scoot petterson with out a single shreed of evdince zero evidence is sitting in death row ??? why does the american system give the power to convict a person or let him free to a punch of jurors like strawberry shortcake who don't know nothing about law or evidence and only listen to the media like opra and Nancy Grace and the view because your a lazzy nation
Scott called Amber during Laci's candelight vigil, and told her that he was celebrating New Year's Eve in Paris during a business trip. He did this while standing next to Laci's family desperately searching and hoping for Laci and Connor. Amber dodged a bullet. She would have been Scott's next victim in one way or another.
If this is true I can see why some are adamant over his guilt….. but true?
True. She wrote a book about what happened, and that story is in it.
@@joan6984 there is video of him on the phone during the vigil. The calls were recorded bc the cops already had Amber Frey helping them. Amber knows he is in Modesto but he tells her he is at the Eiffel tower and the crowd is huge, everyone is dancing to American pop music, and he is having trouble hearing her so he will have to call her back later on her new year (midnight). He had his head down and moved away from all the people who came out to attend HIS WIFE'S VIGIL. It is v cringeworthy. The call was entered into evidence and the video, transcripts and recordings are easily found online. So sad.
@@miaknig3130 Mia losing. This is totally disgusting that he was ignoring Lacies gathering…..he must have some serious mental problem including his high sex drive. He acts like a guilty guy I realize this but apart from that there is too much evidence convincing me that she was kidnapped well after he left the house. Yes, he acts like a guilty jerk this is an immense problem but there is way too much proof that she was kidnapped after he left. There can be two diffrent situations and I think this is the situation.
@@joan6984 you were not sure if the calls were true, one of the most well known parts of the case. Maybe you don't know about other proven evidence. His own words and actions lauded him where he belongs.
I got a call from work that my much beloved Mom had unexpectedly passed away. I went to her house and the caretaker and police were there. Caretaker was like family and she was upset because they questioned her. The Sargent took me aside and said they questioned her because she was crying and sometimes if someone does wrong they cry from feelings of guilt. Interesting how emotions can thus not be used as facts for evidence- as they vary too much. Meanwhile, I didn't cry at first. I was numb 💔
// I appreciate. Thanks for sharing.
Todd said the Police's job is to collect evidence and find the truth. I think cops are sometimes more interested in getting a conviction than finding the truth. This is probably doubly true when a case gets lots of media attention.
I lost my chickens when I got that call😭😭😭💔
I’m introverted and it takes time to process things for me. It would all be a matter of circumstances on reactions like if my kids were in the room, was I alone, am I speaking to professionals like police, etc etc. I disagree with the whole police being able to make assumptions based on reactions or people being “nervous” around police. I think anyone would be, especially in an already heightened emotional state.
Also, Valia I am so sorry for your loss! My mom passed away almost 11 years ago at just 54 years old and there are still days I cry missing her, especially now that I live 5 minutes from where she lived since we were away for 18 years until my ex left me so I no longer was living the military life with him moving around wherever the Air Force sent us.
What got me was when Scott called his mistress FROM Lacie's candlelight vigil. Also, a bunch of searchers were putting up missing flyers, but when Scott opened his trunk, with his friend or somebody near him, they noticed the huge pile of missing flyers. Scott had not put any of the flyers up.
You have a source for that?
It's *Laci
@@jwait1496 you're correcting someone else's spelling? Baaaahahahahaha 😂 That's the best one I've seen all day 🤣🤣
@@sophie8394You're usually the person's spelling I'm correcting VideoFanatic02.
Remember when you said this to me lol.
---"For the way I'm using the word, whose or whoes is acceptable. Look it up. You might learn something Lol! Anyone can look it up and see for themselves it is a word. You just keep making yourself look more & more stupid.
Get an education maybe you'll quit embarrassing yourself!"
Did you ever find "whoes" to be correct spelling? How about "Speggeti".
Quit stalking me creep!
See my post.
@@jwait1496 wow 😲!!!lol sounds like y'all got history between you!
The two leading theories are: The husband killed his pregnant wife, which corresponds with crime rates for pregnant women who are often killed by their partners; or that some random person killed a pregnant woman AND then took the time to frame the husband by watching the news, learning of his favorite fishing spot, and the dumping the body there. Sure, you wish every killer was nice enough to leave boatload of evidence, but in reality, not every case has hard evidence. That's why you have common sense and strong circumstantial evidence.
I Believe he Killed his Wife and Child , he wanted another life (fantasy) listen to tapes with his extra marital girl …….this man was Spoilt and selfish …..
Plus how probable are the bodies turning up where he fished on CHRISTMAS EVE ???? as well he goggled or searched tide patterns ….. sorry he’s Quilty !!!
@@tamichambers7455 that never happened lol. The bodies turned up months later. The police, within 2 days, stated on TV where Scott had been fishing. The robbers across the street, of which a neighbor who knew lacy saw her confront on 24th, all of a sudden were told of a perfect place to dump her and frame him. There's so much evidence that's cone out now, and admitted by the detectives, that was purposely done to mislead or omit. He will likely get a new trial.
Common sense has no place in deciding whether someone is guilty of any crime, let alone murder. It's amazing how often so-called common sense takes us in the wrong direction, human minds have so many biases that what appears as common sense is just plain wrong. The only question to be answered is was he guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? That doesn't always require hard evidence, that could be a mixture of strong circumstantial evidence plus the lack of a plausible alternative, for example.
You might think that the straightforward theory is more plausible than the alternative in this case (Occam's razor and all that), and I'd agree with you. But that's not the question - the question is is there some part of your mind that believes the alternative might be possible? For me, with my shallow understanding of the case, there is enough doubt.
@@cb3514 Yet the SF Medical examiner hold detective Grogan how unlikely it would be for the bodies to stay in one place for nearly 4 months. He also explained 32 lbs of alleged weight was most likely not sufficient.
GERAGOS: Okay. Now, when you talked to Boyd Stephens, he also told you and he was the San Francisco, or still is the San Francisco Medical Examiner. He told you that in cases previously where bodies have bloated with decomposition, that they pulled as much as eighty pounds of weight up with the body surfacing in the Bay, correct?
GROGAN: Yes
.
.
.
GERAGOS: And he said victim would likely have traveled with the currents for a considerable distance before any exposed weights could catch something on the bottom, or the current would allow the object to stay in one place long enough for the weights to begin to sink in the mud.
GROGAN: Yes. When talking about the Richmond Turning Basin area, there.
GERAGOS: If it had made it to deeper waters, it's possible the body would still be in pristine condition, right?
GROGAN: Yes, sir.
He called Amber from Lacey's candlelight vigil. I get that people can behave differently in this situation but... wow. When you add that he told Amber he lost his wife before she went missing it just seems beyond odd.
And telling her that he’s in Paris on New Year’s Eve…🤥
Well, again, the very nature of a cheater is lying. Of course he would lie to his mistress. He had to support the premise that he is available. While certainly it points out lack of credibility, when a man’s life is at question, hard evidence also needs to be present. Personally, I feel that Scott is guilty. But I base that on the evidence I heard without any backstory that may have been omitted. Certainly seems like he is the only suspect possible until you account for the burglars and excluded witness’ to her walking the dog?
Eleven eye witness’ is a number to add in reasonable doubt. In the end, I think there were bad presumptions leading to lack of vigilant investigation.
@@susan7090 Scott Peterson reported his wife missing at 6pm dec 24th and the robbery across the street took place between 4am and 7am dec 26th. Just as they determined many years ago one thing had nothing to do with the other, so you can’t include those robbers kidnapping Laci Peterson as a viable theory or a possible scenario of what may have happened to her and then that leaves just Scott who could’ve done it added with his absolutely insane behaviour afterwards…”if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it’s probably a duck”
Yes, this is called 'catfishing ' ppl tend to lie this way, doesn't mean he's a murderer. MTV has a whole show on this shit. Watch the facts.
@@adamsapples777 how did anyone rob the neighbors house when there was so much press camped out at Scott Peterson house though? They proved that the date was wrong
I don't believe people when they say they saw someone from a missing poster. This happened to a friend of mine when her sister was missing. People came out of the woodwork saying they saw R in a vehicle, driving a vehicle, or walking along a road, and later we found out that R was already dead during the time people swore that they saw her. She had been killed by the father of her children & her body was buried in a shallow grave during the time people said they saw her. The same thing happened with Shanann Watts and her daughters. They were reported as being seen in Walmart when, in fact, they were dead & buried or disposed of. Idk why people do this, but I suspect it has something to do with attention.
That Walmart lady really did resemble Shanann! They just did not know about Nate's camera.
And McStay family, I remember that
Your observation is very important and I hope media and detectives note this as people who claim to have seen victims are often attention seekers & very sick & selfish people!
So sorry to hear your story of dreadful loss. 🙏
Some of them have a sincere desire to help though they are wrong about the sightings
The fact that her and the baby's bodies were found close to where he'd been fishing was just too much for me to ignore. I suppose if someone knew he always fished there someone could have killed her and planted her body there,but that would be assuming a lot.
He cleared out the baby's nursery so fast it made my head spin. Cleared it out BEFORE it was known for 100% certain Lacy and the baby were dead. He also said he didn't really need any children because he had his friends to toss a football with. This man did not want to be a father and he did not want to be married.
Janetlwil curious where that info came from. Not doubting...
Yeah, but none of that has to do with the actual evidence in the case, which is what we're SUPPOSED to judge cases on...
No if he cleared ot the nursery before the body was found that is evidence that he knew they weren't coming back. You see this in guilty cases all the time and I've not seen it once in an innocent case.
You obviously haven't listened to a thing in this video.
Damm...but who is going to push you around in your wheelchair in 40 years time?
When Scott got home from "fishing", he called, Sharon, and said, "Laci is missing", which to me is an odd thing to say. Why didn't Scott say, "Is Laci with you?" or "I can't find Laci"? Also, when Scott went to his neighbor's house to ask about Laci, he told the neighbor he had been golfing. His story definitely changed.
Thats a good point. So many speak past tense or spell too much what they actually know. Commonly people would say have you heard from or seen. Then go through the list. Sure car was there but she does walk a dog. Its precisely what is said more then any emotion showed. All people react differently in front of others. Some are absolutely so shy a stranger (police) tell them something horrific and absolutely won't get anything from them until they are around someone they know or trust.
@@Lindseyisloony I agree!
That is exactly what I said....I feel Scott is as guilty as hell.
@@geofff6671 My first reaction would be to ask hey is Laci with you? Thinking maybe her mom came and got her. Not to automatically think something was amiss.
@@geofff6671 no. you'd ask "where is she? is she with you?" you don't automatically assume someone is missing
Just as an aside on "eye witnesses" who saw Laci walking her dog. I recall years ago, in a psych class (it might have actually been a psych and the law class) the professor arranged for an individual to knock on the door, walk in, hand the professor a message with words, and then leave. This was a Monday, Wed, Friday class. On the following Friday, the professor asked the class to write a description of the individual who interrupted the class the previous Monday. 30-35 students in that class, and about as many different descriptions of the individual and the event. Some said it was a female, some said it was male, different color hair, eyes, etc. The point is, that when we are going about our daily lives, we don't pay attention to things. And when asked to recall, we "reconstruct" events, often times filling in the blanks with past experiences. Just like all the people who were positive they saw Brian Laundrie (despite the fact that he was already likely dead), and saw him all over the country.
Interesting. Thanks!
True, although 8 mnd pregnant is a major eye catcher.
You're suggesting OVER a dozen witnesses who independently seen Laci walking and described her down to to even the breed of her dog, is no more credible than a single witness. 🤦♂️
Let's talk about the clothes Laci was wearing.
Margarita Nava, Laci’s housekeeper, told Detective Brocchini that when she arrived at 8:30 a.m. Laci was wearing a white long-sleeved shirt and (probably) black stretch-type maternity pants, as that was her usual outfit.
This was a typical outfit for her according to Debra Wolski, Laci’s instructor at the Village Yoga Center.
Mark Geragos: Okay. Now, you also described the clothing that she wore as black stretch pants, white shirt, long sleeves, white tennis shoes and a red fleece vest, correct?
Debra Wolski: In the winter, yes. In the cold months.
Mark Geragos: Okay. And you described what she was wearing on December 4th, do you remember that?
Debra Wolski: It would have been the same. The white shirt, the black stretch pants, the red fleece vest.
And this is what Scott told Sharon Rocha on February 13, 2003 in a phone conversation:
SHARON ROCHA: And what was she wearing when you left?
PETERSON: Ah she had on her black pants - and like a white top with long sleeves.
SHARON ROCHA: A pullover or button or what?
PETERSON: Yeah. Pullover like ah-you know tee shirt kinda sweater kinda thing.
None of the clothing items which Laci was described as wearing on the morning she disappeared were found in the house during the first search.
Craig Grogan: We were looking for a white shirt, but we didn't find one in the first search warrant, which would have matched her description on December 24th. We were also looking for white tennis shoes. We did find some white shoes, but they were slip on. They looked like tennis shoes from the front, but they slip on from the back. They don't have a standard back that a tennis shoe would have on them. As far as clothing, that's what I recall we recovered there.
Grogan testified: “I would say the majority match with black pants or white shirts, with the description that was released to the media.”
The MPD hid information from the public and the defense. Remember, a treasure trove of incriminating evidence against S Todd and G Pearce existed. information about any investigation of this tip. Lt. Aponte gave a signed statement to defense investigators which said the prisoner had been interviewed by MPD, and that MPD had received a copy of the taped phone conversation. Instead of this information being disclosed during discovery. The only information provided to the defense about his tip was a simple notation on a CD which included 10,000 other tips about the case.
-Merlin, the trailing dog owned by Cindee Valentin, trailed Laci's scent to the Gallo Winery in the airport district, on the night of December 26.
-December 31, a gold Croton watch, identical to Laci’s watch which disappeared the same day she did, was pawned by Deanna Renfro. Highly unlikely this is just a coincidence.
It gets better. The families of Deanna Renfro, Steven Todd and the Tenbrinks know one another.
-Diane Jackson reported seeing 3 men with a VAN and a SAFE in front of the Medina’s house at 11:40 a.m. on December 24. There is no debating this. The burglary happened the same day Laci disappeared. Both Todd and Pearce pled guilty to burglary charges 12-24-02. They both received reduced sentences.
- S Todd would have received 25 years for his third offense. So why did he get 8 years and 8 months, far less than 25 years. Pearce received only 180 days, yet he was another career criminal.
-Tom Harshman, who lived in Modesto, was driving with Elizabeth Harshman between 2 and 4 p.m. on the afternoon of December 24. He saw a young pregnant woman being forced into a van. He turned around and went back to the spot hoping to find the van still there and hoping to get more information about the license plate number. But they were gone.
1. He called police (911 MPD) that same day.
2. Tried again December 28.
3. December 28, he also called the Laci tip line twice. His first call on this date was listed incorrectly under the name Harsh and was given Bates Stamp number 14789. The call was given to Detective Holmes. Harsh(man) said that he had called 3 or 4 days earlier on the day that he had seen a pregnant young woman being pushed into a van. There had been a man standing over her as she squatted to urinate with her back up against a chain-link fence. The man was described as 30’s, tall, thin, with ponytail, dirty blonde to gray hair, scrubby looking. When she finished, the woman was shepherded back to the driver’s door of the car, where another man’s arm was seen pulling her into the car. He said the young woman was wearing black pants and a red shirt. He said she had a scared look on her face."
4. Jan 3rd, he went to the Command Post in the park and relayed this to the officer on duty. Over
40,000 pages in the discovery and nothing about this report was in it.
5. February 2003, Harshman’s wife spoke to a relative of hers who lived in New York about the sighting of Laci Peterson near the corner of Scenic and Claus. Mrs. Harshman’s relative shared this story with an NYPD detective. This NYPD detective was so concerned that he contacted the MPD and spoke personally to Detective Grogan on February 14, 2003. What did Grogan do with the information? Nothing at all.
6. pre-trial hearings in May of 2004, DA Investigator Kevin Bertalotto noticed the Harshman tip and insisted that Grogan call Tom Harshman and speak to him personally. Grogan did this on May 18, 2004.
An audiotape and a transcription of his conversation with Harshman to the defense on May 20, 11 days before the beginning of the trial.
Over a dozen witnesses had described Laci even down to the breed of her dog on the 24th.
Yet not a single person ever came forward or was found that could have been Laci, and the her disappearance was highly publicized. So who did they see?
Here are the people interviewed.
Elizabeth Guptill, pregnant walker with son in jogging stroller, no dog, didn’t walk in December
Janet Kenworthy, Park walker with white Huskie mix (she didn’t testify), worked on 24th, thinks husband walked the dog that day
Jill Lear, pregnant walker with Australian Shepherd, didn’t walk 24th
Joan Lee, pregnant walker with chocolate Lab and Husband, didn’t walk 24th
Melba Martinez, La Loma walker with 2 Golden Retrievers, didn’t remember if she walked 24th
Dianne Merenda, blond, not pregnant, Park walker with Golden Retriever, didn’t walk 24th
Patricia Mewhinney, long blonde hair, Park walker w/German Shepherd/Black Lab mix, drove and then walked on 24th east from Phoenix
Amy Neumann, pregnant walker with apricot standard Poodle, not walking in December
Jordan Visola-Prescott, pregnant neighborhood walker with black/white Border Collie/Lab mix and Red Flyer red wagon with daughter in it, 99% sure she didn’t walk on the 24th
Kim Westphal, not pregnant, long brown hair, neighborhood walker with Golden Retriever and a friend, 14766 : Kim Westfall (Westphal); she was walking with a friend on 12-24 at 11:30
Michelle Dean (Merced Co. DA, Laci look-alike with Golden Retriever named McKenzie), did not walk on December 24
This is a great point I think this should be a required lesson in any education. I was in middle school in the 1970s and they did this exact thing. Except they had somebody running with a mask and a fake gun and pretend to be a terrorist. Lol. Things were a little bit different back then When we had something called a liberal education. I have never forgotten that lesson from age 12 to now.
*This kind of case is representative of "The Lizzie Borden Syndrome", whereby the evidence is so ambiguous that it makes a clear-cut assignment of guilt difficult, if not impossible. One other comment: since the Peterson baby was not yet born, Scott should not be held accountable for two murders. Millions of unborn babies are routinely aborted and trashed with no murder charges assigned. Therefore, Scott Peterson should not be charged for "murdering" an unborn baby - unless we're prepared to start charging abortion doctors for murder as well.*
This was almost a full term baby, it could have survived outside the mother, most legal abortions aren't performed in the last month...
Look up The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 protects unborn infants against violence and murder, and any individual responsible for the death or harm of a child in utero is charged separately from the offense towards the pregnant woman.
I remember following this case on the news as it unfolded. What convinced me of his guilt was the finding of Conner and Laci's bodies only a couple of miles from where Scott was fishing that day. I find it unlikely that burglars or intruders would travel so far with Laci's body and dump it in the same waters where Scott was fishing.
My issue with THAT is police, within 2 days, had a press conference telling the world where Scott was fishing. They allowed for the opportunity of a perfect framing. New evidence has come out and also evidence not allowed in the trial. There's too much reasonable doubt, and a real possibility the burglars did it. 11 witnesses who knew her saw her that morning. A neighbor did see her confront suspicious people. He needs a new trial. If he's guilty then they prove it with all the evidence this time.
@@cb3514 sure they were just carrying the bodies around for days waiting to figure out where to dump them! lmfao seriously?!
@@catnapper7509 no. That's not what the evidence says. They wouldn't have been dead...and Connor's growth indicates that. You obviously are missing a lot of actual evidence.
@@catnapper7509 Conner was alive no less than 6 days after the 24th. That comes from a forensic pathologist (medical examiner) and a forensic anthropologist.(States expert) and an OBGYN with over 30 years experience.
They concluded Conner could have been alive even as far along as Jan 14th.
@@jwait1496 OK I agree it's not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. I don't like it either. But my suspicion is he did it. Not enough to convict, just my opinion. Cheers y'all.
How about this: He told his mistress, Amber Frey, that he was a widower two weeks before Lacy disappeared. I don't think you mentioned that. He was foreshadowing the future.
true
It could have been a lie too, someone saying he was a widower has no bearing on a future killing.
He had not desire of been a father and on Holiday coming He was planning to expended with the girl his having a affairs and told her he had lost his wife ,how was he going to justify not expende thank Given with his wife and family ?
@@johndoeisme Correct!
How about this :
He told her that to reinforce his statement that he was looking for a legitimate long term relationship with Frey.
Divorce/polygamy or abandonment would lead her to believe that he's lying and that in reality he's a "player."
Guys do that all the time without "foreshadowing" the "pending" murder of their "ex" wives while they're still very much alive and live to a ripe old age ending by natural causes.
Which only serves to prove him a womanizing liar and not a murderer.
Which subsequently, is not illegal.
But consequently leads people to draw erroneous conclusions of guilt.
Why would a guilty man that's planning but not yet executed the murder of his wife tell his girlfriend she's already dead?
Lol!
Only makes sense to those that succumb to feelings due to lack of or more probably in spite of facts, reason and logic.
😀
He called Amber Fry claiming to be in Paris while at a memorial for his wife.
This was recorded by The FBI and he was never in Paris.
True, Scott Pererson is a frequent liar and scumbag; that much has been established. But I think Dr. Grande (among many others) has pointed out there's definitely A LOT of reasonable doubt in the case.
1. Absolutely no physical evidence linking him.
2. If he did kill her, the most rational time to do it was during the night, so he could dispose of her in the dead of night w/o many witnesses. Instead, he drives her body to his boat that morning, so he can dispose of it in broad daylight? Also, people see him at the marina, but NO ONE sees him with any package large enough to hold an adult body...
3. The 11 people who say the saw Laci after Scott left shouldn't be discounted. How many pregnant women matching her description, with a dog like hers, would happen to be strolling around the same area she lived??
Again, I'm not saying I know whether Scott is guilty or not. I don't--I'm not God. But is there reasonable doubt? If we're genuinely trying to be objective and look at the available evidence, yeah, there is...
@@elliota.1063 He would have left evidence had he killed her.
@Megan Smith That's not evidence of murder, Lacy knew about the boat, she just didn't tell her family, and those tools were stored in a house where she lived. He would have left far more evidence, even pros do.
@@elliota.1063 so what about the anchors? He made four anchors on his boat and not all of them were found?
That makes him an assh*le, not a murderer.
The important part too about those burglars claiming they were there on the 26th is that by the 26th there were a number of press outside of the Peterson house. It isn't likely a burglar would see a lot of people around with TV cameras and still break into a house.
Wrong.
GERAGOS: Okay. What was the condition of the street on the 26th when you arrived shortly before 5:00 o'clock?
JUDGE: With regard to traffic or vehicles?
GERAGOS: Traffic, whether there were satellite trucks, whether there were police cars, whether there were people there.
WEND: I don't remember any media being there, specifically. I remember some people walking around, but I was able to just drive up to the front yard of the Medina residence, got out and took the burglary report.
GERAGOS: Were you in a marked patrol car?
WEND: Yes, sir.
The fact that he changed his hair color and attempted to cross the border with a bunch of cash pretty much seals it for me that he did it.
Either that or he assumed he’d be arrested anyway, and he didn’t want to be executed for something he didn’t do.
@@Iiwii11 If I ever kill someone, I want YOU on my jury.
That is false. Sad that it sealed it for you.
He never attempted to cross the border. He was 30 miles from the border in San Diego. He was headed north and arrested at Torrey Pines, where he was scheduled to play golf with his father and two brothers.
Scott's mom, Jackie, was going to loan John the money to buy out Scott. John was then going to take over the payments.
On April 8, 2003, Jackie went to Bank of America to withdraw $10,000 from an old account she rarely used. She did not know her account number, so she gave them her social security number to look it up. Unbeknownst to Jackie, she was listed on Scott and Laci's checking account as well. (Jackie had opened that account with Scott in 1991. Scott added Laci when they were married and never removed his mother.) The bank gave Jackie $10,000 from Scott's checking account. The withdrawal receipt was entered as Exhibit D8Y1.
Jackie paid Scott $8000 cash for his equity in the Dodge pick up. She paid him cash so he could better negotiate while shopping for a car.
On April 12, 2003, Scott purchased a Mercedes from Michael Griffin. He paid him with 36 $100 bills. Scott had $4400 left of the $8000 his mother had given him.
Scott discovers the $10,000 withdrawal from his bank account. He sees the withdrawal ticket signed by his mom and calls her.
Jackie then goes to Washington Mutual on April 17th and withdraws $10,000 cash out of her account. She gives the money to Scott that day to replace the money she took out of his account. She paid him in cash so that the bank would not put a hold on the funds. Scott now has roughly $14,400 in cash.
Scott is arrested the morning of April 18th . He had yet to deposit the money his mother had given him the day before.
@@darrell3643 I take that as a compliment, but I’m not sure you meant it that way.
@@Iiwii11 You really would be a good juror. I can't believe the bad police work on this.
There are too many things pointing to Scott being guilty, guilty in my book
No there wasn’t.
Totally guilty
@@Lily-flying Go watch Stephanie Harlowe's breakdown of the case. I felt exactly the same way until I listened to her 2-hour break down.
Norman J why do you feel the need to belittle women by calling them “little angry ladies”... you could state your opinion without being demeaning.
@@kkheflin3 Stephanie Harlow based her video off an American Justice episode. And not all factual.
It was a weak case that Scott himself made stronger by his own behavior.
Yeah which makes you think that Innocent people can be convicted of any crime based on how other people thing other people should feel and act when human emotions are on a large spectrum. Amanda Knox’s case is a great example of this.
@@cuscotransport6013 No it's not.
There is absolutely nothing proving he is guilty.
@@aok4418so days before she went missing he tells his side chick he lost his wife and this is going to be his first christmas without her, buys a boat, researches about the water currents in a specific area. After she went missing he said he was golfing. Why did he had to lie about that? If there was nothinh suspicious about going fishing, why did he initially hide that?Doesn't make any sense. Then her body shows up in the area he went "fishing". Like, wow, if he's not guilty, he has to be the unluckiest person ever.
@@aok4418 is it true that there were other pregnant women in lacys neighborhood that were murdered as well? If so, why was that not used in scotts defense? I even heard that they found another pregnant woman dead in the same place lacy was found and with her arms, legs chopped off too. Is this true?
@@analuchesi Wow, you really are misinformed.
Detective Wall testified that Scott used his home computer to search for boating regulations, Department of Fish and Game Rules and Regulations, to search classified ads for boats and for information on fishing. In all Scott’s computer use, there is only about 30 seconds total of material that contained any kind of charts for the San Francisco Bay. The prosecution and many news reports egregiously referred to these 30 seconds as “researching” the currents in the San Francisco Bay.
Prosecution Exhibits 179 a-u and 182 a-ee show all pages of Scott’s internet
Dr Grande didn't consider what I think is one of the most important fact: that Laci's body was found right where Scott said he was that day. What are the chances someone else dumped her body right where Scott said he was??
I think they said, something about the investigators told the world, where Scott had went that day> I think the idea was the robbers dump Laci after they heard where he went,,, That sounds flakey! but, personally I think he is innocent,,,
@@jeanniehanford2563 This is something I need to look into. I don't know if the cops immediately disclosed this, or whether it was a couple weeks/months after the fact. It may make a huge difference in whether this is plausible based on the condition of the bodies. What do you think about him having told Amber that his wife was dead and that he cried hysterically about it to her and all the lies he told about where he was on new years?
@@Jay_Birdyessir, they immediately publicized his alibi just days after the 24. Pretty bad move on their part.
The cell phone forensics from Scott's phone gave away his location and ultimately where he dumped Laci's body.
Why would he dump the body that somebody else has killed?
You see how ridiculous that is? That's exactly how your statement sounds, you assume the conclusion and then are surprised how your assumptions lead to the said conclusion.
@@volodyanarchist she never said somebody else did it. It's your comment that doesn't make sense.
@@dguarino6586 Wow. Are you serious. I am pointing out that Virginia Grassi in her comment has implied that nobody else could kill her... and your response is that VG has not said that somebody killed her.
Maybe if something is going over your head, learn to read.
But there was three independent witnesses that saw him getting onto the lake, and all of them said he has no body in the boat. Also, his boat is tiny, it was proven that it would completely capsize if anything heavy would be thrown over.
@@ilhamaaaram1874 where is that evidence? Where is that testimony?
I love your videos, and in this one you bring up some good points. But I disagree with you on your conclusions for this one.
Scott Peterson told Amber Frey he had "lost his wife", before the murder. That indicates to me that he most probably did do it and it was premeditated. He had MOTIVE to kill her: he wasn't thrilled about becoming a father, he was having an affair (s), they were having financial problems, and there was life insurance. I just don't see two house burglars having enough motive to kill her and her unborn child and disposing of her body out in the bay. Did either of them have access to a boat?
I don't see someone like Lacy, who grew up in California, going up to a house being broken into alone, without first calling the police.
If you look at his affair with Amber, you see he was very manipulative and not really concerned with the consequences of his behavior.
It doesn't seem in the range of normal to me that he showed no concern for his nearly full-term son. Even if he wanted a divorce and was not in love with Laci anymore, it still does not seem normal that he showed no concern for her whereabouts or that of their son. He was texting and lying to his lover while family is holding a candlelight vigil, for Pete's sake.
I think there may be room for some reasonable doubt, but his behavior and motives put him in the 51% or more catagory. There's lots more, but other people are commenting on those things.
I too agree with some of the points made in the video. It could be argued there may be reasonable doubt just because of the way the case was eventually handled. However what tips it into the 51% is the inconsistencies in Scott Peterson's truths. On the day he wasn't sure of if he was fishing or golfing to certain people. He recently purchased a new boat (careless who knew about it). He planned this event or just spur of the moment to go to the bay on the one day of the year that was chaotic, leaving his 8 month pregnant wife. (He wasn't working)
He didn't really have anything of note to say about that day he took the time to travel 90miles? He didn't even have the correct equipment in some aspects. You could say he didn't really care if he had caught nothing or did nothing up there. He picked the one day out of the year where it would be not as busy in the marina bay.
The comments to Amber Frey are also concerning. Prior to Laci's disappearance, Scott predicted the death or disappearance of his wife to Amber (obviously this was his cover about him being married to gain sympathy and to keep his married life a secret.)
Witnesses are the lowest form of evidence that the courts can produce because their testimonies can be scrutinized. So, this argument about seeing Laci Peterson walking her dog doesn't ring true when other reports say that, the dog was a different breed or the woman in question was pregnant but no dog and all those other sort of problematic differences in obtaining accurate accounts of that day.
He had the truck, boat and storage facility. He had the means to make his own anchors and again he also had another "truth" to explain what he used all the cement for. Infact he had a lot of the answers to whatever questions were raised. Didn't much matter how trivial those questions were, he had them.
The one thing that really nailed it, is that the bodies did wash up where he had been fishing that day. 3miles from his location. Science doesn't always reveal the truth, whatever that truth may be. Commonsense has to be applied in almost all aspects of criminal cases.
This is just an example piece.
Two people locked in a small confined room, one is dead. There's a gun in the room. This person was shot. However, science says there is no evidence that the other person did this. The door is locked from the inside and they were talking just moments ago. The science also says the other person didn't commit suicide either.
The one person alive will tell the truth and by his own actions, deny accountability but if he can't explain the occurrences that lead to this then the truth lies there.
Pace Yrself didn’t they also find the molds he used to make the weights to hold the body under water? Or an anchor was found- I remember the concrete was a match to the type Peterson had
I have just recently started watching this man speak. I enjoy his videos but he's got it so wrong about Scott peterson. Remember scott phoned Amber from the vigil but he said he was in Paris at the eifel tower, also he said my wife is lost to amber before lacy went missing, pre meditated as he knew what was go happen to lacy and there unborn child.
Pace Yrself I agree, I understand where Dr. Grande is going with this. You cannot know how an individual will deal with his grief. Yes, there were holes in the investigation. But if you follow Scott Peterson cold hearted behavior, in general... and his whole affair. You can bet he was a Narcissist, and a psychopath. Never mind, his upbringing was the classic case of how to raise a psychopath, with the propensity to kill.
Exactly.
We don't need all the puzzle pieces to be in place before we can see the big picture. Lack of scientific evidence or not, Scott consistently told on himself. Science can only explain so much in this world...the rest of it we have to piece together using intuition, judgment and critical thinking.
Scott Peterson told Amber Frey that he had "lost his wife" before while she was very much alive. At a candlelight vigil for Laci, Scott called Amber Frey and told her he was ringing in the new year in Paris. He truly was a fertilizer salesman.
I'm not saying that, just because he had an affair or seemed calm and collected with a missing wife, that automatically means he committed murder. But it's the preponderance of so many other things on top of that. The police certainly made their share of errors, but they didn't make him act so guilty. He incriminated himself. And then there was the escape attempt. He disguised himself, took his brother's ID, and made a run for the border in a vehicle full of survival and camping gear. He was trying to disappear because he knew he was guilty.
The theory about the burglars makes zero sense. Two burglars murder a woman in Modesto, haul her all the way out to San Francisco Bay, and drop her in there? Scott Peterson said he went fishing in the bay on the 24th. Your fastidious and festive wife is 7.5 months pregnant, you have a mistress, and you go out fishing the day before Christmas? My goodness, he told the police where he was that day, and sure enough, that's where the bodies were found. If someone else did it, did he happen to encounter them at the bay with his wife's body in their boat?
The likelihood of anyone else being responsible in this case is infinitesimal.
I love your braingrapes.
Couldn't have said it better myself!!
I've heard it said that narcissistic people are actually really bad at crime because they can't see how something might look from other people's perspectives. They overestimate their skills and tend to think they have committed the perfect crime when they obviously haven't.
There are obviously so many parallels here with the Chris Watts case. You would have thought Chris would have studied this case to see where Scott screwed up. Neither one could resist the urge to try and dupe law enforcement or the media, but they didn't fool anyone.
Laci was 8 1/2 months pregnant.
I laughed at a documentary report of him carrying FOUR cell phones in the car when running to the border - sounds pretty suspicious and weird.
If Scott didn't kill her, then someone killed her/ abducted Lacy, drove about the same time Scott drove to San Francisco Bay, and dumped her in the water about the same time Scott was on the water. This seems highly unlikely. He did it.
But why would Scott dump the body where he went fishing? If he did it it was very stupid of him.And by the way I saw a picture of the boat: very small
And what about the people there who saw him badly manuvering the boat in the water
It was daylight n there were people there
Who in his right mind would dump a body under those conditions. Think about it. Bodies are dumped at night or when there are no people around
@@luisagallarotti9188 The reason he dumped her there was very simple: he thought the two or three concrete ⚓ he tied to her body would weigh her down and she wouldn't float up and he'd get away with murder. But it did work out that way. They were from Modesto, which is like 90 miles away from San Francisco where Laci and Connor were found. Doesn't it seem coincidental that the last day/time Laci is seen alive and she winds up where he went fishing that day? Well, it was more than a coincidence.
A psychopath like him, who thinks theyre clever. You dont understand it because you arent one@@luisagallarotti9188
@billchessmen
What anchors. The trial revealed he made one anchor. It was found in his boat.
The alleged distinctive circles that Brocchini said were on the trailer resembled rectangular shapes from cement bags from work he did at house in September. The pitcher the prosecution alleged Scott made the anchors in didn't even fit.
Geragos: "I've got a sixth-grader -- that looks like a triangle to me."
Hendee: "If you look carefully ..."
(Prosecutor Harris objects)
Delucchi: "The jury can see it. They can draw their own conclusions."
Geragos: (pointing to various shapes) "Is this a circle? ... Is this?"
(Harris objects repeatedly)
Delucchi: "Sustained, sustained, sustained."
Geragos: "Ever go out into the fields where they have those circular patterns?"
CEMENT DID MATCH THE SAMPLE IN THE DRIVEWAY
GEBLER: Yes. In our sample we found fly ash, cement, pea gravel and sand, similar to what was described by Mr. O'Neill.
GERAGOS: Does that mean that the cement that was used in the anchor and the cement that you've collected here and the cement sample that you also observed, does that mean that they all are one and the same?
GEBLER: They're all consistent. They all have, they all have all, from what I saw, the, the, the anchor and these materials are consistent with each other.
GERAGOS: What does that mean?
GEBLER: With the concrete.
GERAGOS: You say they're consistent. Does that mean they have all the same components?
GEBLER: Yes, sir.
The States expert didnt know the difference between a sub base and the actual concrete. How could he since he didn't even go to the scene, Gebler however did.
@@billchessmen
What anchors? The trial revealed he made one anchor. It was found in his boat. The alleged distinctive circles that Brocchini said were on the trailer resembled rectangular shapes from cement bags from work he did at house in September. The pitcher the prosecution alleged Scott made the anchors in didn't even fit. Steven Gebler, a concrete expert, testified at trial the concrete found in the driveway was a match, just like Scott had said.
"I'm sure the dogs were nice dogs." Oh Dr Grande. You can tell how kind hearted you are in taking such care in making sure you don't disparage the possibly unqualified search dogs. That little detail made me smile inspire of the tragic case you're discussing.
He’s such a decent person. 😊
You can tell how genuine Dr. Grade is, huh? It is a rare trait, especially through social media and a person with a big following. I respect Dr. Grande!
I'm not overly concerned about him saying he was a widower....maybe for some reason that was a better option than saying he was divorced?
Someone who could cheat, lie to mistress, went on boat in same area where bodies were found. I do find his demeanor suspicious. He lost a wife and son. I believe he has severe personality disorder. He had motive and opportunity. If you add everything up together he's guilty.
Are you kidding me people should be careful not to offend a dog really it's crazy
First time I’ve ever disagreed with you Doc. How about the fact he said he was going to go golfing that day but changed his mind because it was too cold and rainy so instead he decided to drive 3 hours round trip and 180 miles to fish for less than an hour? How about the timing of the purchase of the fishing license? What about his lies about the concrete? His explanation for the pool umbrellas in the back of his pick up? Laci’s hair strands in boat? The circumstantial evidence is endless and overwhelming. If he gets a new trial, I’m confident a second jury will come to the same conclusion, first degree premeditated murder.
Turns out that Scott never said he was going golfing. Not to anyone. Lacy's stepfather assumed that's where he had been. Lacy knew he was going fishing because was going to warehouse first and she asked him to drop of the large umbrellas for storage. She knew about the boat she was seen there with him a week before by witnesses who knew her. The detectives did so much lying in this case that he will likely get a new trial. But yeah the golf thing has been debunked in interviews and transcripts
What about the concrete.
-DID NOT MAKE FIVE ANCHORS.
They did not find cement anchors in the bay even though the State alleged he made 5 anchors. These distinctive circles that Brocchini said were on the trailer resembled rectangular shapes from cement bags from work he did at house in September. The pitcher the prosecution alleged Scott made the anchors in didn't even fit.
-CEMENT DID MATCH THE SAMPLE IN THE DRIVEWAY
CONCRETE EXPERT
GEBLER: Yes. In our sample we found fly ash, cement, pea gravel and sand, similar to what was described by Mr. O'Neill.
GERAGOS: Does that mean that the cement that was used in the anchor and the cement that you've collected here and the cement sample that you also observed, does that mean that they all are one and the same?
GEBLER: They're all consistent. They all have, they all have all, from what I saw, the, the, the anchor and these materials are consistent with each other.
GERAGOS: What does that mean?
GEBLER: With the concrete.
GERAGOS: You say they're consistent. Does that mean they have all the same components?
GEBLER: Yes, sir.
He forgot to take the umbrellas out. Where's the evidence these umbrellas were used for anything?
People often fish when it's cold. How often do you see people swinging golf clubs when it's cold and "raining".
I've always thought he was not guilty of murder, only adultery.
@@jwait1496 it really bothers me how much misinformation people have regarding this case, but that is 100% due to the media who promoted false statements by the detectives from the very beginning. Those false details get spread over the years, and people become convinced they know everything. Just like the jury, with 2 brand new replaced members during verdict did. Most people also don't realize that, for some reason, this jury was never sequestered. That means a lot of them went home each night researching and soaking in everything the media shared. Many of them were interviewed much later, and outright admitted they did this. I never understood how the judge could legally demand no sequester...especially for this infamous case. Is there a chance he's guilty of it? Absolutely! Was he given a legal trial, and is he guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? Absolutely not. I think he will get a new trial, and this time all the evidence will be presented...I hope. If he's guilty then the prosecution can prove it without all the lies, omission, and mishandling.
The only actual evidence is a piece of hair found in his boat? What about any other evidence found in the house, pickup, or anything else that shows evidence of a murder? What about all the witnesses that saw laci that day and no witnesses seeing Scott commiting a murder or transporting a body at the dock? Seems like a coincidence
You failed to mention Amber Frye's testimony theft Scott told her his wife had died at the time she went missing. Also, he brought cinder blocks on board when he went fishing. You didn't discuss Scott's narcissism or psychopathy.
Yes, he shows no remorse for his dead wife and child. Cold and cunning.
He didn't buy cinder blocks.
And stop pretending go diagnose someone when you know very little.
Am sure mr grande in the case of Christ watts u will say he is innocent too
CCMA bob he didn’t buy cinder blocks because he made his own in his garage. It was in the trial.
@@mipspc No he didn't.
Research the case.
It was debunked at trial.
if I am ever accused of a crime I did not commit I hope Dr Grande is in the jury.
The same might apply if you are ever accused of a crime you did commit.
Her body WAS dumped in the ocean in the general area where Scott had been fishing. The theory that burglars killed her, transported her body to the water, accessed a boat, and dumped her in the ocean in the same general vicinity is just not plausible (unless Scott hired them to do it). Plus if he strangled her the lack of physical evidence is not unusual.
Not to mention the Petersons lived 3 hours away from the ocean. No burglar is going to make a day trip to go dump a body.
The Petersons had a pool, he took her there and drowned her so there would be no crime scene.
I agree with you. Good point
Therewas no way for them to even speculate that she was strangled because they never found anything but her torso and a few limbs. The ridiculous assumption that the baby lived longer was because of a "coffin birth." The baby was protected from the elements for a lot longer than she was because he was still in utero. Eventually her dead body expelled the fetus.
@@c.mckenzie2155 In addition, her family said that she hated boats and had only been out on one a couple of times and got terribly seasick. She would not have gone out on a boat willingly especially on Christmas Eve.
Doc, you've left out a great deal of evidence to support his guilt.
He also puts too much weight on evidence that is notoriously unreliable (eyewitness testimony). He knows it's unreliable and yet he asks, "Could they all be wrong?" - The answer is yes, they can all be wrong, and it wouldn't even be unusual for them all to be wrong.
Dis-information video
or
Just another RUclipsr
The JOKE IS ON US!
THIS GUY IS HAVING TROUBLE MAINTAINING
HIS AMERICAN ACCENT.
And/Or foreign disinformation....yup.
@@nagmastergeneral948 that’s a huge leap bud
@M Bird EVERYTHING the prosecution presented fell apart! That's fact.
@M Bird That verdict was purely based on emotion. They won their case only when Amber Fry hit the stand. Yes, Scott Peterson is a cheating pile of shit but that doesn't make him a murderer. I 100% agree with Dr. Grande, I don't know if Scott killed his wife but I doubt it happened the way the prosecution said it did. I'm glad Scott is on the road for a new trial, I want to hear the real evidence. BTW I was in junior high when this unfolded, I remember it very clearly.
14 witnesses and the defense called none of them
I don't know much about the case, but I thought the "witnesses" claimed to have seen a pregnant lady walking a dog; not that they knew Laci & positively identified her.
Thinking about it, I vaguely remember @ least 1 possible witness saying the police never got back to her.
I wonder why the defence didn't call any of them, to show reasonable doubt.
@Kasia they said pregnant woman, not 8th month pregnant...big difference. So...alot actually on that street.
@@ShipsKat They were not allowed to, which really raises flags.
@Kasia there are pregnant women and golden retrievers all over the place. And considering that is a breed most highly recommended for families with small children, the occurence of pregnant women with golden retrievers is probably lot more common than you would think. That would be easy enough to chase down if you were detectives of the time.
The prosecution stated he killed laci on December 23, the defense showed laci was on her computer looking at umbrellas with sunflowers on them at 8:40 am on December 24. Scott’s Lawler believed this proved the prosecution’s theory was wrong and there is now reasonable doubt. The fear was if some of the witnesses could be shown incorrect or confused the jury would be also or hold it against the defense, looking back it would not have mattered, that jury was finding Scott guilty, even if laci and Connor showed up alive
Dr. Grande, I’ve been a subscriber for a year or so, and I see that this video was made 3yrs ago. I’ve agreed with every opinion of yours with the exception of this one. I remember when this tragedy happened. I followed it and researched the case for many months. There was a lot of evidence that you didn’t mention re: Scott P. I don’t believe this case depended on what the police initially thought or felt re: Petersons demeanor. This guy is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. imo.
@@andie9589 that is not evidence. Every time I see one of these comments it just proves the point. If there were real evidence against him, you would have used that for your example but you didn't. You do not put people on death row without a shred of evidence.
@@andie9589 Not true. His friends testified in the penalty phase that they didn't believe he was guilty. They weren't JUST saying the death penalty was wrong in this case. You're making up your own testimony.
He’s not guilty beyond reasonable doubt . The DA withheld important evidence like the concrete that Scot bought was told he used it to make anchors that he drowned her with but Scott told them he used it to fill it a pot hole in his driveway and when they checked it out the quick creat was used in the pot hole. Multiple witnesses said they seen her walking the dog after Scott was fishing so how could he dumped her body. And a PI hired by his family went to the bay in that same kind of boat and used a 150 pound dummy to dump it over that little boat 4 times and every time the boat tipped over . There is not one single physical evidence that links him to the crime so he’s not guilty without reasonable doubt
@@vickmcfadden833 what Peterson said about filling a “pot hole” and what his family’s P.I says doesn’t even begin to out way the facts and evidence in the case. Also, the people who say they saw the pregnant lady walking her dog didn’t know her or speak to her that day. Everyone has an opinion and that’s okay.. at the end of the day, the overwhelming evidence supports the guilty verdict.
@@andie9589 although I do believe that Scott wasn’t a perfect man and did have strange behavior, this is simply not real evidence that would convict a man beyond reasonable doubt. It is merely speculation. In addition to the current news that a jury was biased and lied on her pre-jury application is the reason this trail will have a re hearing later this month
I heard the pregnant woman seen walking her dog came forward and she was pregnant, had the same type of dog, and was walking in the same area....I believe Scott Peterson is guilty as hell.
Calvena Ainsworth no. You’re wrong.
@@britanny5363ify How so?
"11 eye witnesses saw her after"... I'm not saying he's innocent, I dont know the case well enough to make any assumption. I just happened to read this comment at the moment Dr. Grande started talking about the alleged eye witnesses lol
This is hear say. Unless you can identify a press report or interview with the second pregnant woman, the person who told you that can simply be making it up, or repeating something someone else invented. There are even alternate suspects. This conviction is not safe.
Let me see this in writing. So much of the Scott Peterson case are rumors and not fact. There was no other woman who had Laci’s exact description walking the same dog. That’s a rumor.
It wasn’t that he was just calm and not distressed, he didn’t seem to care that she was missing at all. He was having conversations with his girlfriend and flirting with his sister babysitter. When your wife is missing those kinds of behaviors do matter!
🥺
@@RainCloud848 They found her in Aqua.
Scott's Involvement in the Search for Laci and Conner
Immediately called friends and family
Checked with all the neighbors
Began immediate search for Laci in La Loma Park
Helped get flyers printed and distributed
Did not hesitate to let police search house, vehicles and warehouse immediately
On Christmas morning began going door to door and posting flyers
Translated the missing flyer to Spanish
Organized search teams at volunteer center
Went on Good Morning America Dec 26 to publicize search
Opened the Volunteer Center every morning at 7:00 and closed it on most nights
Did numerous interviews with several Modesto police officers answering all questions asked of him
Called police frequently to pass along tips
Repeatedly called police, asking questions about the status of searches and the best ways to use the volunteers
Personally posted hundreds of posters around the state of California
Hand delivered posters to police stations and fire stations throughout California
Prepared fliers for birthing centers and midwives
Expanded the search to Southern California
Scott and Mike Richardson searched at prenatal clinics around the area
Based on a tip, Scott and Mike Richardson searched a construction site in Manteca
Did television interviews with Diane Sawyer, America's Most Wanted and several local stations
Paid to hire a renowned psychic
Sold country club membership to help finance the search, specifically the website
Signed waiver for release of Laci's OB-GYN records
Worked for several weeks to organize a national search for Laci Day
Established the 1-800-Laci-Info hot line for people who might not want to contact the police
Met with the Mayor, Chief of Police and numerous politicians asking for assistance
Visited churches in the area to hand out fliers
Went to locations all over Northern California searching for information on Laci - traveled thousands of miles following up on tips and to keep the search for Laci alive
Visited search sites including Berkeley Marina, Pittsburgh Marina, Oakdale, Manteca, San Luis O'Neil Forebay and Reservoir and around Modesto
-----
Also, from a TV interview:
(Katie) Couric: Scott at one point wanted to hire a dog psychic to interview Laci’s dog, McKenzie?
(Sharon) Rocha: Yes.
Couric: And did you think?
Rocha: “Why aren’t we getting a people psychic?” (Chuckles) You know, if you’re gonna hire a psychic… At that time I was just “What are you talking about?” It was, to me, absolutely ridiculous.
I read a few years ago that murder is the number one reason pregnant women are killed.
@@lindamilliren7893 IIRC they had to include deaths up to a year after birth. Some sources say traffic accidents kill more pregnant women and medical misadventure kills way more. Still, Laci lived 10 - 40 days after she was abducted. That excludes Scott and makes the failures of the MPD much more egregious.
I think the fact that she was found 90 miles away, in a body of water he admitted going fishing, is pretty damning. I mean seriously, any other individual murdering her would have left her elsewhere. He was cheating, telling Amber his fantasy-land tales, acting rather indifferent to Laci missing, and a myriad of other things. I understand and can accept the misreading his behavior or attitude. As you said, everyone acts different. I can even understand him trying to run away if he felt he was going to be arrested, if innocent. However, he just did too many things that were contradictory to a innocent person, and I even heard that he removed Laci Peterson missing person fliers. For me, despite the lack of forensic evidence, the fact that she was found in that body of water is too convenient. Eye witnesses are nearly worthless. He easily could have strangled her like Chris Watts then taken her to that body of water and cut her up there.
No doubt it looks bad for him. His behavior was not indicative of intelligence. With that in mind, I wonder how he did not leave any physical evidence. There are different types of intelligence though.
It's very common that murderers will put as much distance from the initial crime scene and themselves to establish their alibi and attempting to avoid accountability. Again, this would be only one element of a case that the investigators would look at, while investigating everything else. No matter how insignificant it is or where it leads.
Any inconsistencies in truth are greatly magnified, when a crime of this magnitude occurs.
The police released his alibi so it would have been easy for the killer(s) to frame him. They also found a body in the same area a few years ago cut from the torso similar to laci's body.
Think Evelyn Hernandez & basically a planted body in that bay has already happened 6 mos before Laci & Connor was found..Look, the odds are that the body was planted by someone other than Scott..Why? Just what I mentioned..Someone already used ocean water already as a way to wash DNA in that same bay to plant a body..So it proves someone has already used the Bay to plant a body.....Think about it..Just 6 mos before , someone obviously planted Evelyn Hernandez & her child in the same bay with missing hands & feet & head as Connor & Laci found 6 mos later & in August of 2002 ..Scott didn't even know Amber Frey then..She was found in the bay in the exact same fashion as Connor & Laci..And Janey Peterson has a letter written & mailed on Dec 27th from someone who was concerned that now the media & police revealed where he was that someone will dump the body there to put it on Scott..In other words to say, it's hardly likely someone would dump that body..Basically the body of Evelyn Hernandez shows it has akready been done..That's why I know someone would go at links to pin it on Scott..Because someone obviously dumped Evelyn Hernandez there ..In other word ,it's been done already..
@sumridge I know..People say these lowlifes wont go 90 miles to dump a body..I say Evelyn Hernandez & her child missing hand,feet & head in the same fashion as Connor & Laci & was already obviously dumped in that same bay & only 6 mos before Laci & Connor was found only 6 mos before.Ocean water is a good DNA avoidance so to speak..For some reason,people must think OJ & this case was alike..Who knows..Like police planted blood in OJ's Bronco and no one would plant a body in the Bay....There is no comparison..There were numerous lies by the detectives as you & me knew..But .I keep saying look, someone already has planted a body there & in the same fashion as Connor & Laci and only 6 mos before..In other words,it has already been done
If you are cheating on your wife, you better hope to God she doesn't die.
Ya, either he is guilty or he’s very unlucky. Being a liar and a cheater destroys your credibility. And being emotionless and smug biases people against interpreting your actions generously.
I wish the investigation had followed up on exculpatory evidence. And had obtained physical evidence. Their circumstantial theories were easily challenged but repeated enough in the media people took them as solid.
He apparently had other affairs before Amber that she knew about. She probably kept it a secret from friends and family at the time. She shouldn’t have. It might have ruined his reputation enough, that it wouldn’t have been a problem to divorce her. He would know he would be under the ‘microscope’ of the police. As it happened, he probably thought he was too good looking and life was so easy for him, that he could perfectly cover his tracks.
My sister died from a brain tumor at 14 and I was 19. I refused to view her body as I wanted to remeber her like the last time I met her, alive and laughing. I did not cry for weeks until the funeral and I did see her cascet. Then all my walls broke down. My family was worried about my lack of public affection before that. You just never know How someone will react to trauma and greif. I still feel Scott is guilty, But not because of his emotional reaction (or lack there off). Shock and greif looks very different from person to person.
I agree. Thanks for your input. :)
He dyed his hair and tried to flee the country after it happened…if that’s your definition of grief then, ok
He dyed his hair and tried to flee the country after it happened…if that’s your definition of grief then, ok
Yeah I'm sick to death of prosecutors using "lack of emotion" like somehow you're supposed to grieve in "their" way, and that's supposed to automatically prove you innocent or guilty. FFS, Prosecutors are NOT psychologists, and they need to stop acting like they are!
It wasn't just lack of emotion. It was him acting like nothing happened at all. He went on sleeping normally. Hitting on his 1/2 sisters 22 yesr old baby sitter. Laughed and joked around. Ate fine. Smiled fine.
Usually people who don't show typical sadness at least show aloofness and detachedness. Being zoned out and in a fog. They don't act like nothing happened and go on living as if they didn't just lose their wife and son.
There were people who help families who go through things like this and who see greving families act all different kinds of ways, and even they commented that Scott acted different than everyone else they have ever worked with.
"Im sure they were nice dogs, I dont have anything against the dogs..." XD Love it
😂 I'm dying! They were also unqualified! 😂 They need to hire better qualified dogs! They need better resume writers!
He is the best🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰
His suspicious behavior doesn't mean anything? Really?!
Right! Nice dogs. Lol
@@cynthiastenstrom5361 dogs hilarious great channel
The only comment I’ll make is this: When Scott Petersen was telling (lies) to Amber (his girlfriend) that he was a widow, he also told her this is the first time he’d be without his wife because she’s missing. Did he have the clairvoyant ability to know that Laci wasn’t going to be around that Christmas? No, he didn’t. He knew she wasn’t going to be found.
No, he said he'd 'lost' his wife - implying she's dead. He wouldnt say 'lost' if he meant missing, like he's talking about car keys. Think about it.
Yes, he said that he had 'lost' his wife, which ordinarily means that person has died. Since he was lying about his marital status, you would think that he would deny being married.
You could not prove he did it with evidence and jurors no longer care about the evidence. Innocent until proven guilty. It the corrupt jury hadn't removed 2 jurors. The 1st broke the rules and was replaced by a mad dog woman that almost lost her unborn baby from violence. She lied to get on that jury. She is the reason he is no longer on death row. The mad dog woman walked in the jury room saying he's guilty I will not talk about the evidence I refuse to ,look at the evidence. So the foreman told the woman they would .look at the evidence and don't tell the jury what they will not do. This foreman was the smartest person on that jury and was going to tell the Judge to remove this woman but this corrupt jury removed the foreman instead it would have been a hung jury and they wanted death with zero evidence. Now he gets a new trial. The media tried this case and the ignorant jury was beyond stupid. One day the jury will reap this count on it.
@@tc98826, not everyone speaks the same and he always thinks he's the smartest on in the group, he sees that as honest or an admittance that EVERYONE else is too dumb to catch on to...because they think linear, like your statement suggests.
If a potential partner told me he “lost” his wife, and it wasn’t followed with , in an accident, plane crash, bombing, heart attack….I’d be like……. Eeeeeeeeeeeeeeee……um….. how did you lose her? On a cruise? In the mall? Did you run away? Did she? Eeeeeeeeeeeee…… think I’ll pass……
Honestly, one could remove half of the evidence and accurately conclude he did it.
Only because all of the evidence proves him innocent. Despite $millions, the prosecution could find no evidence of guilt. All they did was say that if you assumed he WAS guilty, and looked at the evidence in the worst light for him (which is the reverse of how a jury should work), then it hinted at guilt, sort of, maybe. That's called a lynching, not a trial.
Unfair trial. 1, 11 of the jurors badgered the 12th juror so badly he feared for his life and resigned his duties. 2 the woman that replaced him had her mind made up and committed perjury on the juror questionaire. 3, The house across the street was being burglarized, Lacy confronted them , I believe they kidnapped her. 4,The police released the evidence of where he said he went fishing long before the bodies were discovered so those thugs that had her were watching tv, saw this and poof took her there and dumped in the water.
@@edwarcandy4648 Very likely similar. BTW, many think the woman who was removed did 'research' and was removed. IMO, she felt bullied by another juror and wanted off. Her research meant nothing if she even did it and was far more innocuous than what the juror who talked to the bar man did. There was no reason to remove her. He should have been removed.
@@NoSpam1891 Look at the newest Exculpatory evidence videos with Scotts Sister or Sister in law, Dad and a few others bringing new ( old unseen by the jury) evidence to light. It is really good for Scott
@@edwarcandy4648 Yes. It's hard not to say that Geragos failed him. There was so much crap the prosecution got away with and so much that should have been explored properly. This was Geragos' first murder case and it didn't go well.
He's a married man who had an affair,. He has a history of deception. I think it's more likely that an adulterous husband is the culprit than a stranger with no motive.
No motive that we know of.
@Abundant Places
Burglars wouldn't take her out in the water to end up on the shore like that. More like dump her in the woods.
Nancy Fahey you realize the Modesto police held a press conference giving away Scott’s Alibi on tv right ? “Scott was fishing here on the day of her disappearance”.
@@lastupenda3049 stupid
@Abundant Places i lived in one of the roughest neighborhoods in the Boston area..trust me, crime was TARGETED at certain people due to their CONNECTION with said people and not random as in what you are trying to imply
I can't believe this is even being discussed. People saw a pregnant woman walking with a dog after a neighbour had put the Peterson's dog in the backyard. It wasn't his wife.
A man was sentenced to DEATH. The only thing he was guilty of was having an affair. The country owes this man a second look at this case WITHOUT the emotion that it was over 10 years ago.
You’re cutting him too much slack here. This case is just like the O.J Case. They did it and it’s glaringly obvious, with little to no room for denial.
I don’t know, OJ had a trail of blood leading from the victims to his bedroom. All the evidence against Scott Peterson is circumstantial.
@John D. Rockefeller , he went fishing at the same spot his wife’s dead body was found. How does that point away from him?
Kevin it was all over the news where he went fishing. Whoever killed her knew where to dump the body to make it look like Scott did it. There was evidence that the bodies weren’t in the water as long as they would have been if they’d been put there on December 24.
@@maryr3612 But none of that means Scott couldn’t have done it.
@@synysterjazmyngates it also doesn't mean he did. The standard is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Not maybe.
Amber was very lucky she didn’t get further along with this guy. Pure evil.
When she realized who he was she went to the police
did u not watch the video?
Oh she was a class act. She went to the police and then posed nude in a magazine.
Maybe if Amber would wait to sleep with a man until after she is married or at least has met his family, none of this would have happened either.
@@cherp7522 get real lol do you wait to sleep with a man? I doubt it lol
I love the direction you're going with discussing some of these high profile cases!
Thank you so much :)
Same here!!!
I thought it was weird that he went fishing alone on Christmas Eve.
san francisco bay can be very dangerous for someone with a small boat, when i was in high school i remember a girl lost her father and brother when they went fishing on the bay in a small boat, and it became windy and their bodies were never found. The police searched for 2 weeks, then gave up, the sharks probably ate then
@@susansparanormalpennsylvan81 But those magical sharks didn't eat Laci or the child....hmmmmm
@@HagakureJunkie
Lol Good point.
The whole family went fishing with him...he came back home...alone
@@c2itccase9 What???
Did this guy mention that he had made cement weights just prior to Lacy's disappearance. The burglary across the street is a far cry from a pregnant woman being bound and thrown into the bay! WHY??? What motive did any random stranger have to kill Lacy and Connor? They didnt steal anything. It doesnt add up that anyone other than Scott did it. "I'm at the Eiffel Tower, its amazing". As he was on his cell phone talking to Amber at Lacys vigil.
you are correct
"It's very clear in our system that we would rather let ten people who are guilty not be punished than punish one person who is not guilty." I'm a Dr. Grande fan and always appreciate the insight as well as the frequent humor. This statement at the very end demonstrates a naivete about the theory versus the reality of the American justice system. While I wish it was true, my experience tells me many in cases, and especially ones which are in the public eye, the prosecution frequently abandons the guilt/innocence aspect of a case for a "Can I get a conviction?" approach.
Most important statement in the vid, and the comments. So. True. Caught my attention too. What?!!
Very few people see somebody accused of a crime and ask: 'So, dear prosecutor, which crime are they not guilty of?'
Think of every case where the person is found to be not guilty, ask if the defence team had to say anything at all. Logically if the prosecutor did not prove the case, there is no need for any defence at all. But most people expect to see all the explanations of minor facts (why did you not cry? why did the body end up in a body of water connected to where you have fished?) and if no explanations are given... then GUILTY!
I was stunned at the good doctors naïveté as well, mostly because I thought he stayed objective in his analysis only to end with that ridiculous statement. Anyone that has had to deal with a public defender knows the reality of our justice system. If you cannot afford to hire a decent defence attorney guilt or innocence no longer matters. Also it was obvious that the prosecution was very calculated and tried this case in the media to create a storm of public hatred for Scott Peterson to aid in getting the conviction. Bottom line, there was ZERO physical evidence to be used against Scott yet he was convicted. And those eleven witnesses to seeing Lacy cannot be ignored simply because they don’t fit the prosecutions timeline. Anyone of us can be imprisoned regardless of guilt or innocence in our current justice system
The entire theory of the prosecution was that Scott didn’t want to be a family man and wanted to be with Amber Frey, a woman with a child. What guy would slaughter his entire family to be with a slut with a bastard child. Makes absolutely no sense to me.
Yeah, that's not only wildly inaccurate it's enraging. I've noticed he tends to lean a little right politically sometimes. Only someone with that kind of thought process as a smart person would minimize the eagerness to lock people up for trivial things and that it's a real money making business. I mean why tf is he thinking saying that?! Does he not know we have more incarcerations by really f'ng far than any country in the world?! lol doesn't give much weight to his sentiment. I think it's also why he was generous to Jordan Peterson who's an obvious right wing grifting hack. Evan Rachel Wood whom he sided with in the Manson case is not lookin great right now. There's so much evidence that literally suggests a hoax. Hopefully he'll look into it and make another video to correct what I believe to be an incorrect opinion that made him come across naive for an objective, intellectual and mental health professional. When I first heard Manson was a pos I thought, probably. But it didn't take long to actually look into it before I formed a strong opinion, let alone made a video taking her side simply because she made claims. I'm glad he has a good take on this case and many others. I just sometimes disagree with him strongly enough to no longer binge like I initially did lol.
This scares me bc Im normally a very emotional person but when my husbands co-worker called me to tell me my hubby (who I absolutely adore) had a heart attack and was on his way to the hospital, he said later that I gave him chills bc I was so calm the whole time. I asked for details of what happened, ask which hospital, then I thanked him and hung up. I didnt have any emotional reaction for like 3 hours! Then I just broke and started balling and shaking! I never would have expected that reaction from myself🤷♀️ just goes to show diff ppl cope differently
Yeah but did you call your lover and happily pretended you were in Paris, and ordered up porn channels?
Yeah it is scary. Putting pressure on people to "act" a certain way is just unnecessary and diverts attention away from what *actions* we can take to deal with the situation.
except Scott Peterson didn't break down 3 hours later.. He kept up the facade even to his mistress, calling her during a vigil for his wife and child... sooo there's that
Since he was having an affair, he clearly did not love his wife, hence the lack of emotion on her disappearance.
That's not necessarily true. And they made his affair WAY more torrid and intense than it actually was. I watched a documentary on the case that blew mind as I always thought he was beyond guilty. I don't think so anymore. He only saw Amber in person a couple of times. His boat couldn't have carried all that weight. People saw her arguing with potential robbers of her next door neighbor. I'd continue to look into it.
@@cassondralynch6342 sorry to hear you fell for the Peterson family documentary.
He saw Amber several times, for days at a time, overnight, going on hikes with her and her daughter and picking out and decorating a Christmas tree.
His boat was more than capable of carrying the weight.
No one saw her arguing with *burglars*. No one. The burglary ACROSS THE STREET happened on the 26th. Already proven. But the documentary didn't tell you that did they?
Yes. YOU should definitely continue to look into it.
@@sophie8394 It was an A&E doc.. there were many people saying his boat would've tipped from the weight. The thing is experts often have agendas and are paid opposition. I wouldn't be shocked if he was guilty, but was shocked that there was as much reasonable doubt for me as there was after watching the series. The objectivity that Dr. Todd is showing here was far from the climate at the time and for yrs after. I wonder how the burglar story came about.. you probably know more than I do.
@@cassondralynch6342 I know what doc you're talking about. It was bought and paid for by the Peterson family.
The manufacturer of Scott's boat testified as to its stability at his trial. I'm not surprised you had doubts after watching that series. That was their goal.
@@sophie8394 It's not surprising either the manufacturer of anything would testify to it's adequacy. I don't disbelieve you, but how do you know the Peterson's were behind it? None of them produced it according to IMDB.
absolutely 100% guilty and I'm from Modesto, CA and I knew her (Laci) when she worked for Gallo
Randy P :YOU BEING FROM MODESTO MUST ALSO KNOW THE OTHER PREGNANT WOMEN THAT WERE ABDUCTED & DISSAPEARED & ON HULU TV, " THE MURDER OF LACI PETERSON " THE TOWN IS DANGEROUS! READ MATT DALTON BOOK PRESUMED GUILTY
You knew laci? Well shit.....he must be guilty then
Sales. Cartel. Fertilizer. Customers. Methodists. Framed. Extorted. Striper.. Viagra. Mexico.
@@georgie6902 If you're not from here I'm not sure how you can make that statement. I lived in Modesto my entire life, and not in the best neighborhood. I wouldn't even say it's dangerous. So unless you're a gang member or committing crimes, it's very uncommon for something bad to happen to you. My AMR explorer group helped in the search efforts for Laci from day 1 and Scott was not involved at all, it was only Laci's friends and family. I also worked where she took pre natal yoga and my mentor was very close to her and tere is no doubt in any of our minds that Scott did this.
@@daughterofthemosthigh8780 I’m from Modesto, it’s a big piece of shit town. I moved to Palo Alto about 15 years ago and never looked back at that glorified meth den of city💯
he bought a fishing permit, never used the fish bait so it was proven he wasnt fishing (lol). Also bought 90 pound of cement (residues found in his boat), used a boat with a device to measure the dept of the ocean. And that’s 5% of the evidence only.
When my brother passed from suicide I was in extreme shock and denial and just felt like I was in a fog. I did not cry right off. I just couldn't consciously believe it.
I am so sorry for your loss. 😿
Very sorry for your loss. You’re absolutely right that there is no “correct” way to behave after being traumatized.
Yes, sometimes it’s awhile for the experience to “sink in”. The loss is so devastating that one goes into shock & numbness immediately sets in. It really IS like becoming a zombie. You walk around seeing, hearing, but unfeeling, but remain in “autopilot” mode.
At some point reality sets in & it’s like a bomb hitting the ground that breaks through the fog surrounding your brain. THEN you can cry & let everything pour out of you. Sort of like a dam breaking.
I totally agree! I lost my partner bc of suicide 8 yrs ago, and I couldn't cry at first. Instead I was talking to the cops trying to explain to them that he couldn't be dead... Not really reasonable, I know 🤷🏼♀️ I am so sorry for your loss and hope you are doing ok . Kind regards from Germany ♥️🌈
I went into shock when my father suddenly died right in front of me when I was 16. People couldn't understand why I did not cry--I felt frozen and could barely speak.
This is (so far) the only analysis of a case you’ve done where I wholeheartedly disagree with you. But I still love you 😊
@Teresa S. I agree. I often agree with Dr Grande but not on this case. Go to Stephanie Harlowe's true crime channel. She does an excellent job of breaking this case down bit by bit and if I had any doubt before that Scott was innocent that was erased after I saw all the facts that were presented.
Dr Grande, I just started watching you and was so impressed. But u have this case totally wrong! He is so guilty! I followed the whole trial and read Ambers book. Please look at all the facts!
There's much he left out especially about him lying to Amber and him getting rid of Lacey's stuff soon after
Scott Peterson was a fertilizer salesman. Actually he was chemical salesman, fertilizer is chemicals and those chemicals are used in the production of meth, who was probably involved with chemical sales to illicit drug producers. The manner of the investigation has appearances of a set up. Throw in the problems with selecting a jury that was ready kill him, he had no chance of a fair trial. How can you convict with circumstantial evidence that has no basis in science or logic.
He needs a new trial without inclusion of the death penalty. We all know the threat of death does not deter a murderer who is confidant he will never be convicted in addition to the obvious fact that CA will never execute another inmate at San Quentin.
@@norman1741 Who is angry? The above ladies have been very polite and respectful actually, while voicing their disagreement, in this one case?
This guy was guilty as hell. His behavior after the fact just wasn't consistent with a person who is innocent.
He was neither concerned, nor was he sad that his wife was gone. He even sold Laci's car after she disappeared. He knew she wasn't coming home.
Don't even get me started on the countless lies he told throughout the investigation, as well as the fact that the bodies were discovered in the same area he was fishing.
Sure, the evidence was primarily circumstantial, but it was very strong circumstantial evidence that was more than enough to convict.
also dna on plyers on his boat. still i could see some reasonable doubt here even if our gut says he did it.
Actually there is no circumstantial evidence against him. The prosecution thought they had a circumstantial case until everything was explained away at trial.
@@tankthearc9875 There was no DNA on the pliers. The pliers were tested by the States expert and, tests that Kyo conducted were negative and the pliers were too rusty to have been used in any commission of the crime according to
the States expert. That testimony is available.
They found a hair but it couldn't be proven to be Laci's. was found after forensics and the cadaver dog was in the boat.
@@jwait1496 if that was the case there would not be a conviction obviously there was
@@tankthearc9875 Innocent people get convicted all the time. So, NO!
So he's in love with a new woman, decides to go fishing on a 3 hour round trip for less than an hour on the water. Then comes home and his heavily pregnant wife is missing. He's talking to this new woman about starting a new life with her. He shows no emotion or worry about his missing wife and even wants to stay out of the media.
Then his wife is found dumped in the same place he went fishing.
That's beyond reasonable doubt.
Didn't he also sell or attempt to sell her car after she went "missing?!" That's beyond obtuse. That's guilty behavior.
Maybe he didnt like her? He probably didnt. But I dont see how that makes him guilty.
And he added porn channels immediately to his cable. That’s weird to do so quickly! These are not reasons I think he’s guilty. He had motive ( to be with his gf). He was a proven liar. He was in the area where the remains washed ashore! What a HUGE coincidence. He had bought concrete prior, why? -to weigh her down. He ran! A non-guilty person does not run, imo, you fight to maintain your innocence. Also his disregard for his wife and unborn child is narcissistic behavior that is off the scale! He was capable of murder. I just don’t see two robbers murdering her and putting her body in the ocean....Ive never heard they had a boat? Why would they dump her body there? It just seems there are many other areas secluded enough to hide her body if they had done it. There are others reasons as well that many have mentioned to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt imo. There’s a small but loud group of people protesting that’s he’s actually innocent and I think there theories are having a slight impact on this case and so now his guilt is in doubt. If the witnesses had useful info that helped Scott why did the defense not use it? Isn’t it proper that the defense seek out these witnesses, hire their own detectives, etc. His appeals process have failed and I’m sure these witnesses were brought up at this time along with having improper defense. Also witness testimony is often very wrong, undependable. Scott was found guilty on strong circumstantial evidence. Scott is right where he belongs.
Apparently the police had his vehicle and Laci’s Land Rover wasn’t suitable for him for his work as he needed to cart and deliver stuff so he traded it in on a pickup.
@@teresas8173 agree 100% there is too much circumstantial evidence for him not to be guilty. Certainly more than 51%
@@Scorch428 why would you though..
Scott did change his story. He said he was golfing then said he was actually fishing
Actually that’s incorrect! He said he was going to go golfing and decided to go fishing instead
maybe he was both golfing and fishing in PARIS....::::ROLLING EYES:::
@@gailmarie65 He told Laci's sister he intended to go golfing on Christmas Eve. He told two of his neighbors he went golfing. He told Laci's relative he went golfing.
No that’s wrong.
@@ljmac22 Look it up.
The physical evidence, the GPS on his vehicle, placed him at the beach over 3 times where the bodies were found. And, that wasn't a place to fish nor hang out.
HA!! Hard evidence to prove his guilt.
He was there because Detective Grogan told Scott, Laci was in the bay and that is where they were searching.
Geragos, in his OS, revealed that Grogan called Scott on the 26th to tell him, "She's in the Bay, we're gonna find her." Geragos said that if Scott had not gone to the Bay, Grogan would have said Scott didn't care.
51 searches and not a single piece of evidence she was dumped in the bay.
@@aok4418 Her body was found in the bay. That's pretty good evidence for that.
@@Charlie-wl2qt No it isn't. His alibi was public.
GERAGOS: Okay. Now, when you talked to Boyd Stephens, he also told you and he was the San Francisco, or still is the San Francisco Medical Examiner. He told you that in cases previously where bodies have bloated with decomposition, that they pulled as much as eighty pounds of weight up with the body surfacing in the Bay, correct?
GROGAN: Yes.
GERAGOS: Okay. And, once again, you gave him, and this would have been on April 2nd, of 2003. You gave him the hypothetical of the chicken wire, right?
GROGAN: Yes, sir.
GERAGOS: Okay. And he told you that the water flow southbound was at four knots, right?
GROGAN: In one particular area we were talking about, yes.
GERAGOS: Okay. And he also said that, in his opinion, thirty pound of weights would not likely be enough to cause a female of that weight, especially wrapped in plastic causing additional buoyancy in the plastic to immediately go to the bottom, correct?
GROGAN: Yes, that's one of the things he said.
GERAGOS: And he said victim would likely have traveled with the currents for a considerable distance before any exposed weights could catch something on the bottom, or the current would allow the object to stay in one place long enough for the weights to begin to sink in the mud.
GROGAN: Yes. When talking about the Richmond Turning Basin area, there.
GERAGOS: If it had made it to deeper waters, it's possible the body would still be in pristine condition, right?
GROGAN: Yes, sir.
GERAGOS: Thank you. I have no further questions.
FLADAGER: I have,
JUDGE: No.
GERAGOS: That's it.
JUDGE: That's it. He's only been here seven days.
FLADAGER: I know.
JUDGE: I say that is the last go-around. That's it.
@@aok4418 I don't know why you posted such a long comment... it doesn't it anyway contradict what I said. Scott Peterson was at the sight where the bodies were later found.
On the 26th of December there were so many media outlets posted up in front of that house, there would have been no way three burglars dragged a safe through that front yard without being noticed. I don’t know if Scott Peterson did it, all I know is that there is reasonable doubt all over this case and to put someone on death row, in this country, because of that, is beyond insane to me. He may have killed her but that’s not how our justice system works.
Since when were there 3 burglars? There were 2 burglars, Steven Todd and Donald Pearce and the burglary occurred at 3 am on the 26th. There was no media, no nothing. This wasn't even a big story yet.
Here's some testimony about the condition of Covena Ave on the 26th...
GERAGOS: Okay. What was the condition of the street on the 26th when you arrived shortly before 5:00 o'clock?
JUDGE: With regard to traffic or vehicles?
GERAGOS: Traffic, whether there were satellite trucks, whether there were police cars, whether there were people there.
WEND: I don't remember any media being there, specifically. I remember some people walking around, but I was able to just drive up to the front yard of the Medina residence, got out and took the burglary report.
GERAGOS: Were you in a marked patrol car?
WEND: Yes, sir.
I agree 100%
That bothers me too. That one reporter said if the burglars had been there on the 26th he'd have interviewed them!😅
Scott is where he should be. The burgler thing was looked into and ruled out. Let it go already. Even Lacis mother knew about all this and wanted it looked into and it was ruled out.
If it were true, they just so happened to kidnap Laci and follow Scott to the exact same spot he fished and dumped her body? It makes zero sense for Laci to end up where she was in the state she was in, if someone other than Scott did it. The condiction of her body matches what a body would look like being in that type of water for 4 months. She was almost skeletal except for her lower torso.
Scott had the means and the motive. He isnt a fisherman but yet buys a boat just days after telling Amber his wife is "gone? Doesn't tell his father in law, (who IS a fisherman) that he got a boat and wanted to go fishing. Chooses to go 90 miles away from home to fish in dangerous waters, as a newbie bad fisherman? Tells no one before hand.
Scott never once showed loss or sadness over Laci. He was trying to pick up chicks during the time Laci was missing. He was doing everything BUT showing any actual emotion of loss and sadness for his wife and unborn kid!
He did it! Case close.
@@GrumpyKay There should be a retrial, there's enough reasonable doubt. They should prove it beyond doubt. There's questionable things in the bigger picture. Why would he place himself at the marina if he was dumping her, when he could have said he was anywhere else and then they wouldn't look there first. And many, many neighbors claimed to have seen Laci walking the dog. Someone DID find the dog wandering the neighborhood with a muddy leash, why would it be loose in the neighborhood with a leash on? If someone else really did it, you know how easy it would be to put the body where the husband said he was that day, since everyone was looking at him anyways, and no one had interest in looking at anyone else.
The affair is obviously notable, but it's so common with men. Every crazy scenario of things can happen in this world, and it really could be that this guys wife mightve been murdered by someone else while he was having an affair. They say truth is stranger than fiction for a reason! Weird things do happen. The fact remains that there's no real solid evidence he did it. I remember a few years ago I was following the Heidi Broussard case, where she went missing with her baby. Everyone, EVERYONE was sure the husband had done something awful because he wasn't acting the way everyone wanted him to I guess. Even news reporters were eluding to his guilt. Then her body was found in her best friends trunk and everyone quietly brushed aside the whole husband blame thing. Just saying, his emotions were used to convict Scott when it's not evidence of anything. Pregnant women especially are at risk for murder for different reasons. Scotts story has never changed when others responsible for similar crimes usually admit eventually. Let's see some solid proof against Scott, cause so far there's not been any.
I’ve been told before when my fiancé passed that I was “cold” because I barely cried and would shut down like almost a shock reaction. Everyone reacts differently....
I couldn't cry when my husband passed due the shock. He had been ill.
I shut down when my grandmother who raised me for 3 years before I moved to Canada died. I felt guilty about my happiness about being reunited with my parents and I could not cry. I felt like shit and I was 16 and confused about how I was supposed to feel.
Oh and my grandmother died 3 months after I was reunited with my parents in Canada. She was in ukraine
Everyone reacted differently and they grieve on their own time! Now Scott is a completely different story, he was having an affair and too busy with his lies that he didn’t have time to be sad! He can’t be sad even if he try cus now he’s free..so he thought! He was trying too hard to cry during his sit down interview.
We do NOT care about you. We only care if Scott P is guilty. The evidence is overwhelming and he is guilty. His reaction to his wife gone missing is only a very small part of the circumstantial evidence. PS Never make videos about YOU.
I agree that there are no right ways to act to traumatic events,but I believe there are wrong ways to act.if that makes sense
it really doesn't. there is nothing as weird as people.
@@jonnylumberjack6223 yeah Jack,nut jobs are plentiful
I agree. A person in grief of anyone, especially a wife and helpless baby may react by holding in emotions which might seem like they don't care, while some wear their heart on their sleeves. However, a person in grief doesn't usually have a surge in libido (his cable bill showed a lot of xxx movies purchased & calling amber to tell her sweet nothings), lack of motivation to help look (he just stood and watxhed a lot) and quickly concluding they're not coming back by selling home and flushing your old life...🤔
@@monicapyle I disagree about the libido thing. It is well known that having sex can be a way of being totally alive, totally human, a way to reject death. I'm not a very sociable person but I shagged for Scotland after I lost my sister. I got the horn in a big way. People are both very basic and quite weird.
And I'm female, if that makes any odds! Blokes hardly need an 'excuse'!!
Amber Frye did not *know* she was a "mistress," therefore I am reticent in calling her one.
it's an archaic term anyways, made me wince too.
@@jonnylumberjack6223 Yep, for sure.
Fair enough. She didn't have the intention to be such. Maybe "lover"?
If you are dating someone and all you have is a cell phone number wouldn't you think there was someone else? Also, she had dated a married man in the past and would have had experience with men keeping relationships quiet.
@@kimlee1968 Hmmm, good point... I guess.
For me, the fact that he made four (one for each limb) weights made me believe that he drowned her. Once Lacie found out about the affair, Scott would have to pay spousal/child support.
Only one weight when 400 lb was needed.
Did the state ever prove that he actually made more than one anchor? Also, I was under the impression that the state's theory held that five anchors were required (one for each limb, plus the neck). This was used by the state to explain the fact that it was only a torso that made its way to the shore.
Also I've never heard that he drowned her. I'd be curious to know if you have any more information on that. One of the strangest facets of this case, to my mind, is that the state's theory required Peterson be a criminal mastermind in covering up all forensic traces of the murder (by whatever means that occurred) and also sort of an idiot in terms of his alibi and subsequent behavior. That said, I do think he's most likely guilty.
he only made one weight.
I don't think she found out, he just needed to get rid of her before that baby was born.
I don't know why you dismissed the hair in the pliers on his boat..it was matched from hairs in Laci's brush--with mitochondrial DNA testing. He had just bought the boat, reportedly he kept it secret from her, she hadn't been on it and there's no reason for her hair to be there. He said he was golfing at first, before admitting the bay fishing trip. Why? Also the time of the reported sightings of Laci out walking the dog came AFTER the timing of a neighbor already finding the dog running loose with leash attached (presumably it was released this way by Scott as a ruse, because of course he said Laci was going to walk the dog after he left. This way he could claim she was abducted, and indeed called Laci's mother later that day to announce "Laci's missing".)
Only days after her disappearance, Scott added 2 pornographic channels to his TV, then soon after traded in her vehicle for a pickup and expressed interest in selling the home. Looks like he wasn't exactly expecting her to return does it?
Ooh, but wait, I have more! He had told his girlfriend Amber Frey that he had lost his wife and this would be his first Christmas alone. Just a sad coincidence for this poor dope that she disappeared in time for Christmas? I think not. He also referred to her in past tense in Diane Sawyer interview while she was still missing, saying she "was" amazing. He also told her that he told the police of his affair the first day (nope) AND that Laci knew and was 'ok with it'. LOL on that one. Too many things add up to the conclusion the jury came to. Scott Peterson is a pathological liar and sociopath who needed his pregnant wife out of the way. Highly unlikely he is just an unlucky fool who had nothing to do with this.
It'sAboutTheEffinMusic RIGHT!! And sadly this is not the totality of the Evidence pointing only to SP and to No One Else.
@@valleygirl2530 That sad sack is right where he belongs. Can't believe anyone would doubt it.
@Psalm 27 all he was missing was the white Bronco 😁
If you have a pair of pliers in your vehicle and you spend any time out of doors your wife and everyone in the family will have their hair and up in the needlenose pliers. You don't have a clue how common that is.
But where is the evidence? Not speculation not assertions. Not innuendo. Not stuff you made up . Not things you want to believe. Evidence?
I think he and Chris Watts were cut from the same cloth - covert narcissist + antisocial.
Great, what are your qualifications again LOL
@@Hshjshshjsj72727 What an ignorant, immature question.
@@gabe-po9yi Wow, you really came back to change what you wrote ? What a loser 😂😂😂
@@Hshjshshjsj72727 you write like a child
@@claudioortiz5830 thanks I value your opinion lol
Thank you Dr. Grande. I felt Scott was a piece of shit, but the lack of evidence doesn't convince me beyond a shadow of a doubt he killed Lacey. My gut says he did, but the lack of evidence and his conviction shows a huge problem in our justice system. It's now 'guilty until you prove you're innocent' kind of system.
Ted Bundy was convicted on less evidence. Way less.
I have to agree with you what bothers me is the robbery that happened the day she went missing while Laci was walking her dog and she approached them that was never investigated up until now in 2023
@@Carolanne1926the *burglary* most certainly was investigated and proven to have happened on the 26th. Laci wasn't walking the dog. She was dead.
Burglar, Steven Todd’s, guilty plea.
COURT: People care to state a factual basis for the plea?
MR. DISTASO: Yes, your honor. On December 26th, 2002, in Stanislaus County, the defendant entered the inhabited dwelling located at 516 Covena Street occupied by Rodolfo Medina with the intent to commit theft.
THE COURT: Steven W Todd, action 1049717, what is your plea to violation of Penal Code Section 459, a felony, first degree burglary, as alleged in Count 1 of the Complaint where *it’s alleged that on or about and between December 24 of 2002, and December 26 of 2002*, you did willingly, unlawfully, and feloniously enter an inhabited dwelling with intent to commit theft?
TODD: *Guilty*.
@@sophie8394 it did not happen on the 26th. Their street was crawling with tv crew from 3am on. The police ignored or dismissed any exculpatory evidence. Like eye witness testimony of Laci at the boat. (It wasn’t a secret murder purchase.) They got tunnel vision.
I’ve noticed the police always say the guy charged acted guilty or looked like he wasn’t stressed by the missing person. In a recent case, the officer said the guy didn’t act distressed and seemed to be faking it when he found his dead son. Then I heard a recording of the same guy making wierd guttural wails that sounded like a lung shot elk and a torture victim recorded together. I know from combat that everyone reacted differently to the mutilated bodies and especially the ones still making noises or screaming like a gut shot rabbit.
In any case, the recording was anything but the “wasn’t reacting “ testified in court.
The police lie in court every time we have proof of what they say. They’re always going to say the suspect acted guilty.
I think it is OK for the police to "feel" that someone reacts suspiciously as a trigger for further investigation. But it seems wrong to base a conviction on this type of suspicion.
Yeah I remember that when my mom broke the news that my cousin who was a year older than me died. It hit me like a stack of bricks usually when something like that happens I just stand there with zero emotions and I process what I just heard. Then a couple days later my grandma dies and same thing just trying to figure out what happened like a delayed reaction. But when I went to my cousin’s funeral I just couldn’t do it anymore and just started to cry.
I think you've overlooked Scott calling Amber during a ceremony for Lacey and saying he was in Paris. He took no interest in finding her and the police do have their spidey senses, as unscientific as that may be, they're often right. He got rid of her car, he was dead cold about her. She was gone and he washed her out of his hair right away.
I think he was relieved to be rid of her. He shouldn't have gotten married in the first place. A womanizing sociopath.
I never question a cops spidey sense. Whenever a cop shoots an unarmed black man, their spidey sense called for it and they’re often right🙄
I am a skeptic, a logical person who tries not to emotion cloud my analysis and judgement. I love your vids because they look at all these subjects in a likewise manner. No dramatic music, no quote mining and no emotional outbursts from family and friends. This is very refreshing (even when many might not think as interesting).
You might also enjoy true crime rocket scientist
What’s crazy is if this happened today every house would have cameras, we would know what day for sure the house was robbed across the street and when Laci was last seen walking the dog. Case would be solved in 5 min. This case drives me crazy because it seems obvious that he did it, especially the home made anchors and no rope. Just wish it was a rock solid case
One thing I forgot to mention before is that the media announced the location where Scott was fishing the day that Lacey went missing. I want to say that they announced the exact coordinates, but it's been so long ago that I can't remember if they just gave an approximate location or if they gave the exact location. Anyway, I remember when I saw this I couldn't believe it. They gave this information to the whole country, so if someone had Lacey held kidnapped or something like that they could have just thrown her right in the bay knowing that her husband was going to take the rap for their crime. At that time the media had already deemed Scott guilty. I couldn't believe that the media would be so irresponsible as to announce that information. I always wondered why this wasn't brought up in court and presented before the jury. In my humble opinion the fact that anybody could have tossed that body there provides some reasonable doubt right there.
They said he was fishing in the SFB. Do you have any idea the size of the area? And you think someone could have just gone and dumped her body when the bay was crawling with LE searching for Laci? Get real.
Conner's body was nowhere near where he was testing his boat. Laci's remains were thrown into the bay from anywhere on the shore.
I agree with your suspicions. Leaves room for reasonable doubt.
@@sophie8394 if he( Scott) can throw her over into the bay anybody could.
@@steelhurricane4041 there's no evidence anyone else did it though. All the evidence points to SP and only SP.
I lived through this case while living a few streets away from the Peterson house at the time. It was a crazy experience seeing all those media trucks in our city for so long.
There is no doubt in my mind that Scott is guilty. He had so many motives - not wanting children, his mistress, money - just one would be enough. The eye witnesses who claim she walked her dog that day do nothing for me. Eye witnesses are notoriously unreliable. They could havd been remembering a different day or simply have seen someone else.
In order to believe that he is innocent, you have to believe that someone else did it. Someone completely unrelated to both of them. Who? Why? They would have had to take her without anyone seeing them and have left zero evidence behind. Then they would have had to hold onto her body long enough to learn where Scott had been that day so they could go drop her body in the same place. I don't recall exactly how long that was, but he originally said he went golfing. They would have had to hold her for a while, anticipating his story changing.
It's just too much. The evidence against him is too much to overcome and the alternative is too outlandish. He did it. He deserves to be where he is.
So why was her jewelry pawned by some random person ? Why is there no dna evidence ? What about the burglary that occurred ? What about the police giving away Scott’s alibi on tv? What about a corrections officer hearing a jail convo between random people about a lady, a baby , and a robbery? Circumstantial evidence works in a lot of cases. In this one it’s just tunnel vision. Did he cheat on his wife and say dumb shit, yes but the burglary and time stamps from the mailman and neighbors leave me thinking this case had tunnel vision from day one.
@@davidgravey1998 he did it. sorry dude. he's exactly where he belongs
Well said! I think you have to have more faith to believe Scott Peterson is innocent than to believe all the circumstantial evidence pointing to his guilt
@@davidgravey1998 not sure where you are getting that the jewelry was pawned by someone other than Laci. The only jewelry I can find that was pawned, was pawned by Laci and Scott. They all testified to this at trial.
In fact, jewelry is just another notch in the guilty column. The necklace that Laci wore was one she did not like to remove. So why would she have gone for a walk that morning without having that on or the ring she was wearing in place of her wedding ring that was being altered? Obviously Scott removed the jewelry from her dead body because it was valuable and he wanted to keep it.
The burglary was ruled out as being at all related very early in the investigation. A jail conversation overheard? They could literally have been talking about anything - this case or anything else. Or the person overhearing misunderstood. I have no knowledge of this supposed conversation, but it is meaningless when everything else is so solid.
What DNA evidence are you wanting? Back then, touch DNA wasn't used back then. So what DNA were they supposed to find and where? If he strangled her, there would not be any blood.
I don't understand why anyone would think that Scott has any possibility of innocence. He did it. He is the only one that had means, motive, and opportunity. Pregnant women who are murdered, are murdered by their partners. Not by random strangers.
@@Karamarika burglary is ruled out bc police lied about the day of the event, if that happened on the day police claimed they had, no way all those media cars on the neighbourhood didnt catch the burglary taken placed. and there are witness saw Lacy arguing with two males too
I would suggest anyone interested in this case goes to Stephanie Harlowe's channel and watch the 3-part series she did on this case. She goes deep into this case.
Kara Bee : Thank you so much for telling us about Stephanie's channel... can't wait to start...but is 3:30 am .
I love her so much
Thanks. I'll look into it.
Stephanie Harlowe is the QUEEN
How would I find this channel?
You are missing a lot here. 1) He said to the lover that he was single, they met 6 days after the wife's disappearance and when she confronted him, he told that he "lost" his wife. 2) he didn't repport that the wife (pregnant!) was missing, it was her stepfather that did it). 3) He didn't show intresse in participating of the searches 4) He had a secret boat (nobody knew that he bought it) 5) he changed the colour of his hair and tried to scape... and many many other details that just add upp.
But that is all circumstantial "evidence" which is not what Dr. Grande is covering in this video. He is discussing the lack of hard evidence. I think it's incredibly likely that Scott did it, but because there is pretty much zero physical evidence, it's problematic that he was convicted to death beyond a reasonable doubt.
@@wotm122 Many circumstancial that make the case strong.
You got 3/5 of the points factually incorrect. It’s ok, that’s only 2/5 correct = 40% that definitely enough proof to put someone in prison without reasonable doubt, no problem. Laci knew about the boat, she was there at the warehouse the day before and he never escaped to Mexico. It is nothing but speculation that he was going to escape, he stated he wanted to get away from the media which is a valid excuse if you consider how ruthless the media was towards him.
@@RiceBowl510 misinformation. He attempted cross the board, changed the colour of his hair. Everything can be explained when one want...but not everything is plausible.
@@MartineH1 sorry that’s just not true. He never tried to cross the boarder, it’s speculation that he tried to. He was in San Diego where he grew up and his family lived and he was living out of his car and planning to play golf that day
Laci's body was found exactly where Scott was that day. There might as well be a confession this case is so obvious. Beyond all the circumstantial evidence of Scott lying repeatedly claiming Laci knew about the affair and didn't really care, Laci was told by doctors stay off her feet but she was walking the dog alone on dodgy terrain? Scott also tried to hide the boat initially and told people he was golfing to avoid suspicions around people finding out he bought a boat and his wife has disappeared at the same time. There's also 5 imprints of homemade concrete anchors near the boat and only 1 anchor found in the boat. The fishing lure he claimed to have used was still in the original package. And then there's the mistress, who was told his wife was missing 2 weeks before going missing.. Suspiciously on the exact same day that he bought his secret boat. And he just happened to take the secret boat out for the first time after checking current reports, 90 miles away while Laci was being murdered? . The only strange thing about the case is the burglary up the street, which isn't all that odd considering most burglaries happen over holiday periods when people are away, and the burglars were both drug addicts so it's doubtful they left no evidence of forced entry, no evidence of a struggle, blood/DNA/Fingerprints or anything like they did in the burgled house.
One other thing, well maybe two. The fishermen at the doc said they hadn't seen a boat that small go fishing thrre at that spot. Sharon was not aware he had a boat. Lacy did not know he had purchased a boat... what? in the days right before her murder. All roads lead to Scott. His actions are what convicted him not behavior....there is a difference.
How do you know what Laci did or did not know???
the baby theme for Connor's/Logan's room was NAUTICAL themed....
People who like nautical THEMES, generally love the ocean/love to sail maybe fish etc...
gee what a fucked up thing to buy a boat and go fishing.
🤦♀️
what IS fucked up though is the dumbass police releasing the information of Scott's alibi/whereabouts the morning of Laci's disappearance...
FUN FACT:
THE ALIBI A MURDERER GIVES IS TO separate THEM FROM THE CRIME SCENE!
derp de derp!
You’re leaving out the fact that he was telling Amber that he was in Paris while at the vigil, also he told her that he was a widower before he (allegedly) killed them. Also let’s not forget that he made Conner’s room a “storage” room to dump whatever, soon after they disappeared... With all my respect, I think you’re being way too conservative in your analysis. Cheers from a fan :)
liar and murderer are two different things.... but if a cheat gets caught in his own web.... (Do not be deceived. God will not be made a fool. For a person will reap what he sows, Gal 6:7)
I thought the same thing. The moral of the story is dont commit adultery and you won't be punished.
It's interesting how you decide something like guilt or not in some unrelated objective questions by how you feel about lying and cheating in some relationship. You're one of the reasons why, if I was on trial for a crime I didn't commit, I'd try to keep every woman off my jury.
@@inTruthbyGrace So... what is your lesson here? If he was cheating in sexual relationships then its just fine if he gets mistaken as the murderer and jailed for life. Warped!
@@jonathandewberry289
Had he not been cheating, he wouldn't have been punished. Bottom line. He wouldn't have even looked guilty. His own personal sin condemned him.
I agree with you. He could be guilty, but I don't think we have enough /actual/ evidence to give him the death penalty. His behavior is odd, but a personality shouldn't be considered evidence.
it's not his personality that tells us he's guilty. it's his behavior and that sure as fuck can tell us he's guilty. Example, innocent people don't get fake documents in their brother's name to escape to mexico
@@sl7883 that's speculation why he did that though. If he's feeling like the police have decided he's the only option and wont look elsewhere he would also try and escape. That's also speculation though, we'll never know his motive unless he confesses to everything, which even then could be coerced by police. Does it look suspicious? Yes. Like most of the things he did. But I still wouldn't call it evidence.
@@flannelpower14 : not every capitol punishment execution is a slam dunk like "the rape & murder of a 90 year old Nun, with a minimum of 3 stab wounds". I've heard law enforcement comment before, about "circumstantial evidence" being ironclad more than we think it does.
Personality isn't something people can ignore, so of course jurors are going to consider it, whether they mean to or not. I'm sure those jurors easily noticed that Scott was a narcissist, a compulsive liar, low on empathy, and someone who cheats and hides things. How can this kind of personality not factor into another person's judgment and intuition?
@@jonesy2892 because it's not facts
IDK if you watched the event from the very beginning but I did. The guy is guilty as sin! His actions (or rather, inactions) and his words (including those he did not speak) spoke volumes! You will NEVER convince me he was not guilty. And it wasn’t just a little lie here or a little one there - it was lie after lie after LIE he told. Even the way his parents treated the Rocha family (from Sharon Rocha’s book “For Lacy”) spoke volumes. There is a pretty major character flaw that runs through that family. I am not a “blood is thicker than water” kind of gal - if you’re guilty, I will call you out even if you are my first born.
To everyone in the comments who is saying that it doesn't matter because he is guilty anyway: It does matter! Even if this man did it, it's not fair to convict him on the basis of fabricated and circumstancial evidence. I would rather have guilty people free than the risk of one innocent being imprisoned because of stuff like this.
I believe you are the most thoughtful man I've ever listened to. I subscribed
Yep. 100% agree. He's my new favorite
100,% agree.
Love how professional and objective Dr. Grande is but also uses common sense
he really is and I watched him regularly. I like the way he reads us two sides and theories
No way this guy is nuts he’s always yelling about people in his voice is super annoying and he’s losing his hair. We are talking about Dr. Phil right?
Even if cops judged him right away on his reaction to her missing it wasn't the only thing they were looking at. The spouse is always intensely looked at and with good reason.
The police investigated Scott and found nothing. They ignored crucial leads and sightings that pointed elsewhere. That is tunnel vision. Don't stick up for the MPDs lies and botched investigation.
The place smelled like chlorine too.
but you need EVIDENCE
@@marshaboody9069 Evers and Brocchini testified under oath at the Preliminary hearing, that there was NO smell of bleach in the house that night.
Scott might have found telling potential mistresses he is a widower makes him more appealing and approachable and what happened later in life was a coincidence.
He debated between a "last minute" fishing trip or 18 rounds of golf and chose fishing; which was more financially sensible since he purchased the two day fishing permit four days earlier on Dec. 20 and the pass was on the final day(good only on Dec. 23&24) being Dec.24.
“Never lied”. Are you serious? He lied repeatedly, including on national television! He told LaCies family he was going golfing. How can you say with any seriousness he didn’t lie?
This analysis of Grande's was a joke. He just parroted defense arguments that were descriptions of hearsay which was never presented in trial. To say that SP didn't lie shows you he knows nothing about this case.
Saying that he intended to go golfing...just because he changed his mind later doesn't mean he was lying at the time. Was there some other lie, besides the lies regarding the affair? I think Grande was specifically talking about his alibi that morning.
@@Somegirl811 Yeah, the affair, no biggie! No man has ever killed while having an affair before!!! Brilliant!
!
@@Somegirl811 But when her dad called 911, he said that his son in law was out golfing that day, though. Which means Scott lied about his activities of the day, on the day.
Never lied . He had an affair so he had been lying for months
Oh God. They're gonna speculate a bout this forever. Scott won't get acquitted of anything unless Laci appears alive someday. His own half sister says she knows he's guilty.
I knew Peterson was lying when he said he went sturgeon fishing. I lived in that area at the time plus I did a lot of sturgeon fishing. It was a horrible day for fishing which I remember well because it made me change my plans to do the same. He didn't have the right tackle onboard for the type of fishing he claimed to be doing. On top of that, any experienced fisherman would not have spent the day fishing on the bay under those weather conditions, in a small aluminum boat.
And by himself !!!
Was he an "experienced" fisherman? He may have been quite green.
He told several other people he was golfing and not fishing at all. He said fishing because people seen him at the ramp so he had to change his story on the fly. He called lady's mom and told her she was missing without asking any questions or even looking for her.
@dieulivol was she really seen though?
Lizzie Liz on I’m sure that he didn’t have ANY fishing knowledge; he just wanted to play with his new toy!
Scott still has enough incriminating evidence against him to convict him. A new jury today will still find him guilty.
The prosection presented nothing but circumstantial evidence, not one single piece of direct evidence. Scott should not have been found guilty. Had Amber Frey kept their affair secret, Scott would not have been found guilty. He was found guilty solely based on the affair he had with Amber, nothing else. In no way, shape of form does an affair prove murder.
The Family annihilator is a repeated story. I can see Scott clearly as an Annihilator. There's the typical narcissistic motive at play. The lies. He is soooo guilty. You should look into family annihilators and give us your take on it.
Dr. Grande thought this about Chris Watts , but not Peterson???
Wow, if I kill someone so that I can go screw around, you know, cause a husband might be inconvenient for my narcissistic endeavors, I want this guy as my mental health character witness on the stand.
this is THE best response ever to this analysis! thumbs up girl! 🙂
@@comfym3850 Oh yeah!!!!
You're proof why some women should never be jurors. You can't separate your feelings from fact.
@@andrewvincent7299 There were no facts, only feelings when he butchered his wife and baby for a side piece so there's that.
Right!
This is another example of the difference between “reasonable” with “theoretically possible”, no offense Doc
Hell, Robert Blake was at the scene alone with the body and the murder weapon and he didnt get convicted haha.
I feel bad for this guy if he is innocent. I dont think he is, but he could be, and thats the problem.
@@Scorch428 The children of the dead woman successfully sued him in civil court for wrongful death, though.
@@Scorch428 If he is innocent then he would be incredibly stupid and unlucky. I do not believe he is stupid at all. I think he is highly intelligent. I believe he's a malignant narcissist. And guilty as hell.
Did anyone consider that maybe Scott had someone kill her? I’ve always wondered this.
Dr Grande- I was pregnant at the same time as Lacey Peterson and lived in the same area so I followed this case very closely at the time. He had a receipt as an alibi that placed him at the point where her body was found. There’s a lot of info you didn’t cover - missing concrete anchors, and so much more. The evidence was largely circumstantial but overwhelmingly showed that he very likely did do it. Of course everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but mine won’t change, new trial or not.
But it also needs to be mentioned that the media widely circulated Scott's alibi & his fishing spot long before Laci & Connor were found there. Any other killer would then know where to dump the remains. Additionally, a doctor testified during the trial that he believed Connor's remains to be at 9 months development, when Laci went missing at 8 months. She could have been alive for up to a month after her disappearance while the cops & press were only looking at Scott & tracking his every move. If that is true, it rules him out entirely. They also don't even know how she died (let alone when). And the importance of the robbery that happened right by Laci when she went missing cannot be overstated. It's a miscarriage of justice that they didn't pursue it. It's also a miscarriage of justice that the state sentenced someone to death on very little circumstantial evidence & a high amount of reasonable doubt.
Thinking he is/could be guilty is one thing - actually convicting him & sending him to death row is another. It's scary that the state won.
Whit B - Good point and true. I’m not a scientist but I think the medical examiner found that she’d been submerged in the Bay for quite some time...animal activity, etc. Not that someone else couldn’t have done it, but if she’d been there from day 1 or 2 of her disappearance, then his alibi puts him there. That’s what’s incriminating.
also, Laceys coat was still at the house and all her shoes were there ..he drove the dog w/ a leash to the park on the way to dump his wife's body ...btw lacey was found in the clothes she was wearing when she went to get her haircut the 23 rd ..the previous night to Christmas eve ..not the cloths Scott said she wore Christmas eve ...she did not take the dog for a walk barefoot w/ no coat
The clothes she was wearing from the 23rd were found in the hamper. She was NOT found in them.
@@whitb850 your talking about a PAID witness for the defense who offers "his professional opinion" that ... blah-blah-blah *could* be the actual facts in the case. That and $5.29 will get you a cup of espresso at Starbucks...
Watch the ABC interview where Scott said Laci "was" and quickly corrected himself and said "is". He knew she was not coming home and a little bit of truth slipped out.
Is this damning evidence to put a man behind bars? What about the 11 eye witnesses that saw laci after Scott left? Did they see a ghost or perhaps another pregnant with the same exact dog breed in this small neighborhood?
@@RiceBowl510 no one saw Laci.
Ah, the classic "past-tense" gotcha moment. Death by grammar.
I'm definitely not saying Scott is innocent, but caution should be exercised when trying to analyze behavior. Any credible behavioral scientist will tell you that there are no "absolutes" when it comes to "tells". It's a fallacy. A baseline of an individuals typical behavior and speech pattern needs to be established prior to analyzing them. Using past tense is something to note, but on its own, it does not prove anything as there are other factors that could explain why someone would do that. These kind of observations can be effective tools to utilize in investigations or interrogations. Not as definitive evidence of guilt or innocence.
This is one case that I totally disagree with Dr. Grande. There were a bunch more "coincidences?" that he doesn't address. Too many to go into here--- its all public info. But if the things he mentioned were the ONLY elements of the prosecution's case, then of course he thinks Mr. Peterson is innocent. This is the danger of trying to address something that you aren't particularly qualified for. As a psychologist, this guy is AWESOME. As an "arm chair Sherlock" I think even he will admit ( and does, that it's just his opinion) that he only addresses one or two facts from the trial. You can be unbiased, and still be wrong. Still, as a psychologist, dude knows his stuff.
I agree, Dr. Grande makes plenty of very good well reasoned arguments, this Peterson case is just not his best work.
I agree To disagree with Dr. Grande. We listened and watched for hours and hours. and so much is no longer available online.
Yep, Dr. Grande is way out of his depth here. Reminds me a bit of his criticism of Dr. Phil, that Dr. Phil is not qualified to do the things he does (which is true) - problem is that the same is true with Dr. Grande whenever he tries to second guess investigators or juries using incomplete information and speculation. Not great. His psychological profiles are always great though and very interesting.
Coincidences are not evidence. Would you want to be put in prison for coincidences?
@@kita3256 You can find and watch Grande's video on Phil for a longer explanation. But basically, Phil's license expired many, many years ago, basically when he chose to become an entertainer, rather than a mental health practitioner.
This was a classic case of trial by media. There was literally no physical evidence to support his guilt and many interviews were not conducted that may of proved a correct timeline.
Scott is guilty of being an arsehole but that doesn’t mean he is a murderer. My hope is he gets a new trial now the Innocence project have picked up his case.