@@@The *LA* Innocence Project taking on Scott Peterson case

[fernweh]

Claiming new evidence that he did not kill his wife and unborn child.

I hope if he is innocent they are able to get him released but I don’t know…
I read another different article stating it was a lot of circumstantial evidence and if the case hadn’t made national headlines/he hadn’t been tried in the court of public opinion the case would have gone differently. I was at teenager at the time so I remember the headlines but didn’t follow it closely.

www.yahoo.com/entertainment/innocence-project-takes-scott-petersons-143826211.html

[StrawberryBlondie]

This case has always made me uncomfortable.... I mean, I think he did it, but the lack of evidence bothers me. It's always seemed like he was convicted more off vibes than anything else.

[underwaterrhymes]

I’m grateful for the Innocence Project and the work that they do.

I think Scott Peterson is guilty AF, but if he’s not, then I hope they are able to get him released.

[wawa]

This case pops into my head every single time I use a large cooler on a boat.

Highly publiciszed cases always give me the ick for this reason. because i have zero idea if this man is guilty or innocent, but from seeing it all on the news back then I just have a general "ugh, murderer" vibe from him that might be totally unwarranted because I don't ACTUALLY have a fucking clue what happened. And that's super weird.

[StrawberryBlondie]

Bailey Sarian has a Murder Mystery & Makeup on this case that's really good, btw.

[erbear]

Jan 19, 2024 10:41:25 GMT -5 underwaterrhymes said:

I’m grateful for the Innocence Project and the work that they do.

I think Scott Peterson is guilty AF, but if he’s not, then I hope they are able to get him released.

This is where I am. I feel pretty sure he did it, and he deserves to rot in prison. And I think there was some shenanigans in the trial. But ultimately, I think they made the right decision and I feel some kinda way about this.

[erbear]

Jan 19, 2024 10:48:02 GMT -5 wawa said:

This case pops into my head every single time I use a large cooler on a boat.

The Ann Marie Fahey case gives me these vibes every time. It's so odd how certain things ingrain your brain.

[maudefindlay]

I get feeling a way about this case for sure, but the more I think about it I'm glad they took it on. When they find the courts got this case right maybe it will shut him and his family up. I've read around 5% of people are wrongfully convicted, so there is a chance. But chances feel less than that in this case when I remember he didn't help look for her and at a vigil for his wife he was talking on his phone to his mistress.

[wawa]

Jan 19, 2024 10:59:51 GMT -5 erbear said:

Jan 19, 2024 10:48:02 GMT -5 wawa said:

This case pops into my head every single time I use a large cooler on a boat.

The Ann Marie Fahey case gives me these vibes every time. It's so odd how certain things ingrain your brain.

 Just now realizing that I've conflated two "man dumps wife/girlfriend in water from a boat" cases for decades. 
Now that I've been reminded that the Ann Marie Fahey case exists, I don't think the Peterson case involved a cooler.  Just a little fishing boat. 

this feels so flippant and I feel bad about it - I am not trying to make a joke about two murdered women. I am laughing at myself a little though.  

[maudefindlay]

A little fishing boat Scott bought and told no one about.

[mcsangel2]

There is evidence that he was at the site her body was later found, the day she went missing.

He changed his appearance and tried to flee to Mexico using his brother's ID.

Isn't the leading cause of death of pregnant women murder by their romantic partner? You will never convince me he didn't do it.

Conner would have been 21 this month.

[starburst604]

Jan 19, 2024 11:36:50 GMT -5 mcsangel2 said:

There is evidence that he was at the site her body was later found, the day she went missing.

He changed his appearance and tried to flee to Mexico using his brother's ID.

Isn't the leading cause of death of pregnant women murder by their romantic partner? You will never convince me he didn't do it.

Conner would have been 21 this month.

All of this, and also the affair he was having. Of course cheating doesn't mean someone is a murderer, but the nature of it (pretending to be single and inserting himself into her family life) shows him to be capable of great deception and also points to him not wanting to be hampered by a wife and child. 

[StrawberryBlondie]

Jan 19, 2024 11:36:50 GMT -5 mcsangel2 said:

There is evidence that he was at the site her body was later found, the day she went missing.

He changed his appearance and tried to flee to Mexico using his brother's ID.

Isn't the leading cause of death of pregnant women murder by their romantic partner? You will never convince me he didn't do it.

Conner would have been 21 this month.

That's completely circumstantial.

Not that circumstantial evidence is "bad" but this case was entirely circumstantial.

[maudefindlay]

Circumstantial evidence can convict someone and in this case there is so much of it.

[mcppalmbeach]

This is neither here nor there, but what does the innocence project do with the information if it’s found that the individual is in fact…not innocent. Surely that has happened no? I

[StrawberryBlondie]

Jan 19, 2024 12:28:01 GMT -5 maudefindlay said:

Circumstantial evidence can convict someone and in this case there is so much of it.

Except there's really not *that* much.

I want to be clear that I do think he's guilty, I just think the evidence in this case meets the civil burden of proof but falls short of the criminal.

[StrawberryBlondie]

Jan 19, 2024 13:10:06 GMT -5 mcppalmbeach said:

This is neither here nor there, but what does the innocence project do with the information if it’s found that the individual is in fact…not innocent. Surely that has happened no? I

The Innocence Project has some pretty strict criteria for taking cases - basically they don't take cases they're not almost certain they're going to win. According to their website, one of their criteria is that there has to be physical evidence that if subject to DNA testing, will prove innocence.

[maudefindlay]

Jan 19, 2024 13:21:28 GMT -5 StrawberryBlondie said:

Jan 19, 2024 13:10:06 GMT -5 mcppalmbeach said:

This is neither here nor there, but what does the innocence project do with the information if it’s found that the individual is in fact…not innocent. Surely that has happened no? I

The Innocence Project has some pretty strict criteria for taking cases - basically they don't take cases they're not almost certain they're going to win. According to their website, one of their criteria is that there has to be physical evidence that if subject to DNA testing, will prove innocence.

What is their success rate?

[maudefindlay]

Jan 19, 2024 13:13:14 GMT -5 StrawberryBlondie said:

Jan 19, 2024 12:28:01 GMT -5 maudefindlay said:

Circumstantial evidence can convict someone and in this case there is so much of it.

Except there's really not *that* much.

I want to be clear that I do think he's guilty, I just think the evidence in this case meets the civil burden of proof but falls short of the criminal.

I think there is ample.

[StrawberryBlondie]

Jan 19, 2024 14:22:45 GMT -5 maudefindlay said:

Jan 19, 2024 13:21:28 GMT -5 StrawberryBlondie said:

The Innocence Project has some pretty strict criteria for taking cases - basically they don't take cases they're not almost certain they're going to win. According to their website, one of their criteria is that there has to be physical evidence that if subject to DNA testing, will prove innocence.

What is their success rate?

IIRC, about 50%.

[StrawberryBlondie]

Jan 19, 2024 14:24:24 GMT -5 maudefindlay said:

Jan 19, 2024 13:13:14 GMT -5 StrawberryBlondie said:

Except there's really not *that* much.

I want to be clear that I do think he's guilty, I just think the evidence in this case meets the civil burden of proof but falls short of the criminal.

I think there is ample.

My problem with the evidence is that while yes, all the signs point toward him, all the evidence against him can also mean something else. They did a great job proving that he was a shitty husband that didn't really care that his wife was dead, but their theory seemed to basically be "cheating husband, must not have wanted to be a father, so it makes sense he killed her." The actual true evidence he killed her is weak.

[tacokick]

Jan 19, 2024 13:10:06 GMT -5 mcppalmbeach said:

This is neither here nor there, but what does the innocence project do with the information if it’s found that the individual is in fact…not innocent. Surely that has happened no? I

Like 42% have been proven guilty after they got involved. They just stay in jail. There is also a possiblity they get charged with a new crime if they uncover that.

It really must take a lot of nerve and hope to be guilty and have the Innocence Project take on your case but it apparently happens a lot more than you’d think.

[tacokick]

Jan 19, 2024 14:35:04 GMT -5 StrawberryBlondie said:

Jan 19, 2024 14:24:24 GMT -5 maudefindlay said:

I think there is ample.

My problem with the evidence is that while yes, all the signs point toward him, all the evidence against him can also mean something else. They did a great job proving that he was a shitty husband that didn't really care that his wife was dead, but their theory seemed to basically be "cheating husband, must not have wanted to be a father, so it makes sense he killed her." The actual true evidence he killed her is weak.

Without a witness, what other evidence would be enough?

[maudefindlay]

Jan 19, 2024 14:35:04 GMT -5 StrawberryBlondie said:

Jan 19, 2024 14:24:24 GMT -5 maudefindlay said:

I think there is ample.

My problem with the evidence is that while yes, all the signs point toward him, all the evidence against him can also mean something else. They did a great job proving that he was a shitty husband that didn't really care that his wife was dead, but their theory seemed to basically be "cheating husband, must not have wanted to be a father, so it makes sense he killed her." The actual true evidence he killed her is weak.

That's true, but I look at it as more than just a cheating spouse defense. If he truly only cheated that seems weak, but there were so many lies and omissions by him. From what he was doing the day she went missing, to the boat no one seemed to know he owned, to the pots and cement residue. He is for sure a bad person, but seems there is support beyond just the cheating.

[StrawberryBlondie]

Jan 19, 2024 14:42:02 GMT -5 tacokick said:

Jan 19, 2024 14:35:04 GMT -5 StrawberryBlondie said:

My problem with the evidence is that while yes, all the signs point toward him, all the evidence against him can also mean something else. They did a great job proving that he was a shitty husband that didn't really care that his wife was dead, but their theory seemed to basically be "cheating husband, must not have wanted to be a father, so it makes sense he killed her." The actual true evidence he killed her is weak.

Without a witness, what other evidence would be enough?

Literally anything?

I kind of hate that I probably sound like a Scott Peterson apologist in here since I do think he was guilty, but there is SO much that's unknown in this case. For example, having an affair doesn't mean you killed your wife. Not being upset that your wife is dead doesn't mean you killed her. Telling the woman you're having an affair with that you're a widower (when your wife is still alive) doesn't mean you killed her. Lying about where you were the morning your wife disappeared doesn't mean you killed her either. Dying his hair (badly) and moving in with his parents afterwards doesn't mean he was planning on going on the lam.

He's sketchy AF but none of the above has zero other explanations than "killed his wife."

[maudefindlay]

Jan 19, 2024 14:42:02 GMT -5 tacokick said:

Jan 19, 2024 14:35:04 GMT -5 StrawberryBlondie said:

My problem with the evidence is that while yes, all the signs point toward him, all the evidence against him can also mean something else. They did a great job proving that he was a shitty husband that didn't really care that his wife was dead, but their theory seemed to basically be "cheating husband, must not have wanted to be a father, so it makes sense he killed her." The actual true evidence he killed her is weak.

Without a witness, what other evidence would be enough?

For me it's all the lies, his efforts to deceive people, his weak responses all of it together.

[maudefindlay]

Jan 19, 2024 14:50:47 GMT -5 StrawberryBlondie said:

Jan 19, 2024 14:42:02 GMT -5 tacokick said:

Without a witness, what other evidence would be enough?

Literally anything?

I kind of hate that I probably sound like a Scott Peterson apologist in here since I do think he was guilty, but there is SO much that's unknown in this case. For example, having an affair doesn't mean you killed your wife. Not being upset that your wife is dead doesn't mean you killed her. Telling the woman you're having an affair with that you're a widower (when your wife is still alive) doesn't mean you killed her. Lying about where you were the morning your wife disappeared doesn't mean you killed her either. Dying his hair (badly) and moving in with his parents afterwards doesn't mean he was planning on going on the lam.

He's sketchy AF but none of the above has zero other explanations than "killed his wife."

It's the totality for me. That's a lot of effort to deceive that isn't all related to the affair.

[StrawberryBlondie]

Jan 19, 2024 14:55:40 GMT -5 maudefindlay said:

Jan 19, 2024 14:50:47 GMT -5 StrawberryBlondie said:

Literally anything?

I kind of hate that I probably sound like a Scott Peterson apologist in here since I do think he was guilty, but there is SO much that's unknown in this case. For example, having an affair doesn't mean you killed your wife. Not being upset that your wife is dead doesn't mean you killed her. Telling the woman you're having an affair with that you're a widower (when your wife is still alive) doesn't mean you killed her. Lying about where you were the morning your wife disappeared doesn't mean you killed her either. Dying his hair (badly) and moving in with his parents afterwards doesn't mean he was planning on going on the lam.

He's sketchy AF but none of the above has zero other explanations than "killed his wife."

It's the totality for me. That's a lot of effort to deceive that isn't all related to the affair.

Is a bunch of things that individually could be explained by something else enough to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, though?

IMO that's more like "yeah, he probably did it."

[maudefindlay]

Jan 19, 2024 14:59:02 GMT -5 StrawberryBlondie said:

Jan 19, 2024 14:55:40 GMT -5 maudefindlay said:

It's the totality for me. That's a lot of effort to deceive that isn't all related to the affair.

Is a bunch of things that individually could be explained by something else enough to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, though?

IMO that's more like "yeah, he probably did it."

There's always subjectivity in what one considers beyond a reasonable doubt. If he really were innocent then he worked his ass off to look guilty.

[StrawberryBlondie]

Jan 19, 2024 15:04:54 GMT -5 maudefindlay said:

Jan 19, 2024 14:59:02 GMT -5 StrawberryBlondie said:

Is a bunch of things that individually could be explained by something else enough to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, though?

IMO that's more like "yeah, he probably did it."

There's always subjectivity in what one considers beyond a reasonable doubt. If he really were innocent then he worked his ass off to look guilty.

Some subjectivity, sure, but the jury gets a specific instruction about what it means. It has a definition.