Laci Peterson Case

[bfez1]

Is anyone else here still interested in the Peterson case. I am. I have been listening all weekend to the details of the preliminary hearing. So interesting that no one knew Scott had a boat, not even his Dad. And the strand of hair in his pliers. Amber Frey is expected to testify sometime this week. So much circumstantial evidence but not much of anything else. This is going to be very interesting to see how it all unfolds.

[TexasStooge]

Just got the latest Lacy Peterson case story:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s ... shingstory

[wx247]

Yes, but it seems the media isn't really covering it like I thought they would. I know, I know... it is only the preliminary hearing, but still I thought there would be more coverage than there has been.

[bfez1]

Yes, but it seems the media isn't really covering it like I thought they would. I know, I know... it is only the preliminary hearing, but still I thought there would be more coverage than there has been.

There is lots of coverage on it at night on CNN, FOX and MSNBC. I tune in every night to watch it. Tonight on CNN, Larry King has an entire panel discussing it. Love Nancy Grace, she doesn't bite her tongue.

[wx247]

I like Nancy Grace as well. Unfortunately, I get most of my news during the day.

[stormy]

i am still interested, yes there is some news but like u said not alot, that i have seen. so how many of u think he did it.????? i am going to wait till the trail starts. i want to believe he didnt do it. but whaattt do i know. where is all the blood if he did kill her at home or on the boat???? i am confused. just my opinion. what do u all think

[bfez1]

I do think he did it but then again where did he kill her??? Lots of questions still need to be answered.

[sunnyday]

Why did he kill her? If it was for the other woman, he got a bum dleal. His wife was a real cutie; this other woman is not at all attractive.

[rainstorm]

the govt's case is too weak. even though i think he did it, i cant convict on this evidence

[Lindaloo]

First of all, just because he had a boat that no one knew about is not evidence. There are plenty of men out there that buy things without anyone knowing it.

Second, they really have no proof he killed her. No DNA nothing. Just because he cleaned the house does not offer proof either.

It will be very interesting to see just what the prosecution comes up with. Scott's attorney will probably have an answer to all this circumstantial evidence. The Prosecutor has to carry this burden of proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that he killed his wife and child. Right now, the jury will acquitt!

[ColdFront77]

I like Nancy Grace as well. Unfortunately, I get most of my news during the day.

If you are able to get your news during the day, Nancy Grace is on CourtTV's Closing Arguments...
2:00pm to 4:00pm, your time.

[Miss Mary]

Until it's proven otherwise, I believe he killed his wife and child. I didn't buy his story from the very beginning. What husband goes off fishing on xmas eve day, with an 8 month pregnant wife at home? And the first baby too! That first baby really gets the attention - everything is a first. I delivered both our babies early. If that marriage was as good as everyone assumed it was, then he would have been home with Laci.

I'm waiting for the verdict but not following the case closely. Because I hate looking at Scott's face - murderer. No one yet has painted Laci anything but the devoted wife, daughter, sister and new mother-to-be. If he wanted out of fatherhood this badly, he should have just had to guts to say - this isn't for me. And packed a bag and left. He just didn't want to take care of a newborn and then a wife on top of that. He wanted to have his fun (had an ex who was this way to an extent). This case has always saddened me deeply.

Just my opinions but like OJ, Scott Peterson did it I firmly believe.

Mary

[j]

I seriously doubt this case will go to trial...JMO..but unlike OJ, which also was a purely circumstantial case, the prosecution, at least to the extent that we know so far, has zero blood evidence. What they have is an affair, a hair, and a fishing trip of curious timing, along with a timeline too open to put the players in place. No witnesses...no baying dogs.......nothing.

OJ went to trial, with good reason. However...if I was on that jury, I too would have had a difficult time convicting him. That is not to say I don't think he could have done it. I just don't see that the State proved he did.