Nobody ruined Scott Peterson. He has done that himself. If he simply didn't want Laci anymore...that's fine. All he had to do was divorce her, and that would have been okay. Sad, maybe, but at least it would have been honorable. But instead, he murdered her. And it's no one's fault but his own. And now, he shall reap what he has sown.
@offwiththefairies77 it is not the money they want. it is to ensure that scott never benefits from the the murder of laci and the baby. i would want to clean the clock of a killer who took my daughter and grandchild also. i would not want them to benefit in any way from their deaths. it is justice and the thought of him scaping in money on their deaths is horrible..make sure he never benefits..that is what it is about.
People People People listen man, its so amazing how folks get down.The guilt of a murder suspect is often determined by their physical appearance.Take Casey for example.Look how many men found her irresistible & never wouldnt have voted in favor of her guilt despite the evidence being overwhelming. I mean THAT jury would have needed for the murder to have been on video.Some people need the murder recorded to convince them beyond reasonable doubt.Even then,they would fuss there was no audio!
I am both amazed and terrified, that if your a man, your guilty. The feminazies have been trying for years to side step due process, rules of evidence and plain old "constitutional rights" to push their hateful agenda. A civil trial is done on a lesser standard of proof, but even that "lesser standard" would not be possible given the total lack of coroberating evidence. They would lose, scott get a new trial , a fair one, Scott goes free, they get sued for millions .
Ah there you have it, so called experts, trying to say " oh no, Scotts guilty and we don't have to follow no "stinking due process" , we don't have to produce any real evidence or witnesses. Besides we tried him in the court of public opinion on the Communist New Network( CNN) The civil trial was dropped because they would have to prove it and they can't really, no evidence existe. IN an honest court, that follows the rules, they will lose, hands down and politically they cant afford it
Wrong on the facts, wrong on the law .. Circumstantial evidence would not necessarily eliminate him as a suspect, whereas hard evidence could. Further, if you're going to execute a human being you really better have your fucking act together and prove beyond ANY doubt that a human being is guilty before you KILL THEM. Just my 2 cents
It does make sens that they should be allowed to use his criminal conviction against him in Civil court in order to sue for "wrongful death", however there is always that issue over wrongful conviction aswell and having it used against somebody in a civil lawsuit, (Im not saying Scott peterson is guilty or innocent) just a potential issue is all. Also, if he were hypothetically acquitted of murder in a criminal trial, should that be used in a civil trial in his defence??
but there was a speculation that some kind of a cult killed her, because she was killed on a satanic holiday just like another woman who was killed in a similar way and place. this was stated by a former congressman, William Edwin Dannemeyer .
While I do believe he is guilty, there isn't any hard evidence against him. There is only evidence that IMPLIES it was him. Totally different.
It is rare that someone is eliminated as a suspect. That only happens if it was physically impossible for him to physically do it. For example, if it was proven that he was in France at the same exact week of his wife's disappearance.
The thing that convicted SCOTT was that he admitted being in the same marina where the bodies were later discovered. Laci did not go there herself. If he was in France he still could of hired someone else to do it,and could still of been convicted. Whatever it was enough for the jury. HE PUT HIMSELF AT THE SCENE!
@tenishotshot Sometimes circumstantial evidence is better than direct evidence. Direct evidence can be a witness, witnesses can lie. There is too much circumstantial evidence against Scott for him to be innocent. Selling his wife's car, wanting to sell the house, who said she wasn't coming back? He knew. Headed to New Mexico, brothers license, an array of camping equipment, dyed his hair. etc, etc...
@tenishotshot many convictions are built on circumstantial evidence. it is not weak when u have enough of it to make a reasonable judgement of guilt. for centuries the law has applied such evidence in conviction without it we would have many murderers on the loose. the jurors in this case used the evidence present and their reasoning to make the judgement that they agreed upon. the right verdict was given and punishment was just.
LOOSERS!!!! He is a murder. Thank God and your angels that he was not related to your beloved family in any way. You might not be so agasp by his charming and beguiling good looks while he was chocking your sister,cousin,friend....now would you! Get a life!!!!! He lost his!!!
@ryskysop Finally someone who agrees with me , I am so tired of hearing women talk about how good-looking Scott Peterson is and how horrible and despicible ugly and average looking guys are. I remember reading how female reporters( many of whom have college degrees) could not stop talking about how handsome he was ,. It makes me sick When I walk in a room women do not talk about how handsome and charming I am
@ryskysop@ryskysop Ok,first of all its "murderer" not "murder", "losers" not "loosers". Also, its "choking" and not "chocking".Perhaps you're the one who may be in need of a life?Yes?Some of you people are so amusing as soon as someone has a DIFFERENCE of opinion, you spazz out and start tossing your opinions around as if they are FACT.Remember, FACTS leave zero room for POSSIBILITIES! Facts can typically be substanciated by science.My opinion? Scott is guilty! But it isnt FACT,its an opinion.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Vikki prisoners do not "own" websites.
I have followed the Peterson case extensively, and agree with the judges ruling on the civil case. Have you read any court documents associated with this case? Evidence was withheld. Read the motion filed by Scott's defense (Motion for a new trial). Delucchi turned it down, but his reasoning was seriously flawed. Perhaps the judge in the civil case knows this?? Hmmm.
Nobody ruined Scott Peterson. He has done that himself. If he simply didn't want Laci anymore...that's fine. All he had to do was divorce her, and that would have been okay. Sad, maybe, but at least it would have been honorable. But instead, he murdered her. And it's no one's fault but his own. And now, he shall reap what he has sown.
GIROBOTII 2 months ago
Scott is enjoying being a prison punk for the Aryan Brotherhood.
PattayaDIRTY 2 months ago
Why would the family even want that blood money?!!
offwiththefairies77 3 months ago
@offwiththefairies77 it is not the money they want. it is to ensure that scott never benefits from the the murder of laci and the baby. i would want to clean the clock of a killer who took my daughter and grandchild also. i would not want them to benefit in any way from their deaths. it is justice and the thought of him scaping in money on their deaths is horrible..make sure he never benefits..that is what it is about.
sweetkittytwine 1 month ago
People People People listen man, its so amazing how folks get down.The guilt of a murder suspect is often determined by their physical appearance.Take Casey for example.Look how many men found her irresistible & never wouldnt have voted in favor of her guilt despite the evidence being overwhelming. I mean THAT jury would have needed for the murder to have been on video.Some people need the murder recorded to convince them beyond reasonable doubt.Even then,they would fuss there was no audio!
BrooklynOmerta 4 months ago
Thank God and angels? Where was God and angels when Scott killed Lacy and dumped her into the bay?
htwynn 9 months ago
I am both amazed and terrified, that if your a man, your guilty. The feminazies have been trying for years to side step due process, rules of evidence and plain old "constitutional rights" to push their hateful agenda. A civil trial is done on a lesser standard of proof, but even that "lesser standard" would not be possible given the total lack of coroberating evidence. They would lose, scott get a new trial , a fair one, Scott goes free, they get sued for millions .
unclefixer 1 year ago
Ah there you have it, so called experts, trying to say " oh no, Scotts guilty and we don't have to follow no "stinking due process" , we don't have to produce any real evidence or witnesses. Besides we tried him in the court of public opinion on the Communist New Network( CNN) The civil trial was dropped because they would have to prove it and they can't really, no evidence existe. IN an honest court, that follows the rules, they will lose, hands down and politically they cant afford it
unclefixer 1 year ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
CHECK OUT THE SCOTT PETERSON SONG I MADE!! ITS PRICELESS !!!! youtube.com/watch?v=jgxzoSo7PaY
PaulSamSin 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
CHECK OUT THE SCOTT PETERSON SONG I MADE!! ITS PRICELESS !!!! youtube.com/watch?v=jgxzoSo7PaY
PaulSamSin 1 year ago
Sharon Rocha, my prayers are with you. Remember that you are Laci's voice.... you fight and you continue to fight hard. This man has a lot of nerve.
Kalihiwoman 1 year ago
@Kalihiwoman
he cut her head off so her vocal chords are in san fransisco bay actually
turtles12 1 year ago
haha he hit his head 3:34
mh4life101 2 years ago
Wrong on the facts, wrong on the law .. Circumstantial evidence would not necessarily eliminate him as a suspect, whereas hard evidence could. Further, if you're going to execute a human being you really better have your fucking act together and prove beyond ANY doubt that a human being is guilty before you KILL THEM. Just my 2 cents
nonewmccarthyism 2 years ago
"OJ!!!"
-Scott Peterson, in regaurds to his wifes murder.
sp1dermac 2 years ago
It does make sens that they should be allowed to use his criminal conviction against him in Civil court in order to sue for "wrongful death", however there is always that issue over wrongful conviction aswell and having it used against somebody in a civil lawsuit, (Im not saying Scott peterson is guilty or innocent) just a potential issue is all. Also, if he were hypothetically acquitted of murder in a criminal trial, should that be used in a civil trial in his defence??
andy77718 2 years ago
but there was a speculation that some kind of a cult killed her, because she was killed on a satanic holiday just like another woman who was killed in a similar way and place. this was stated by a former congressman, William Edwin Dannemeyer .
justsophiegirl 2 years ago
Circumstantial evidence is not direct evidence.
While I do believe he is guilty, there isn't any hard evidence against him. There is only evidence that IMPLIES it was him. Totally different.
It is rare that someone is eliminated as a suspect. That only happens if it was physically impossible for him to physically do it. For example, if it was proven that he was in France at the same exact week of his wife's disappearance.
Again, circumstantial evidence is very weak.
tenishotshot 2 years ago 4
The thing that convicted SCOTT was that he admitted being in the same marina where the bodies were later discovered. Laci did not go there herself. If he was in France he still could of hired someone else to do it,and could still of been convicted. Whatever it was enough for the jury. HE PUT HIMSELF AT THE SCENE!
estelle715 2 years ago
@tenishotshot Sometimes circumstantial evidence is better than direct evidence. Direct evidence can be a witness, witnesses can lie. There is too much circumstantial evidence against Scott for him to be innocent. Selling his wife's car, wanting to sell the house, who said she wasn't coming back? He knew. Headed to New Mexico, brothers license, an array of camping equipment, dyed his hair. etc, etc...
XWoodchuckleX 11 months ago
@tenishotshot many convictions are built on circumstantial evidence. it is not weak when u have enough of it to make a reasonable judgement of guilt. for centuries the law has applied such evidence in conviction without it we would have many murderers on the loose. the jurors in this case used the evidence present and their reasoning to make the judgement that they agreed upon. the right verdict was given and punishment was just.
sweetkittytwine 1 month ago
LOOSERS!!!! He is a murder. Thank God and your angels that he was not related to your beloved family in any way. You might not be so agasp by his charming and beguiling good looks while he was chocking your sister,cousin,friend....now would you! Get a life!!!!! He lost his!!!
ryskysop 2 years ago 6
@ryskysop Finally someone who agrees with me , I am so tired of hearing women talk about how good-looking Scott Peterson is and how horrible and despicible ugly and average looking guys are. I remember reading how female reporters( many of whom have college degrees) could not stop talking about how handsome he was ,. It makes me sick When I walk in a room women do not talk about how handsome and charming I am
delorme9 1 year ago
@ryskysop @ryskysop Ok,first of all its "murderer" not "murder", "losers" not "loosers". Also, its "choking" and not "chocking".Perhaps you're the one who may be in need of a life?Yes?Some of you people are so amusing as soon as someone has a DIFFERENCE of opinion, you spazz out and start tossing your opinions around as if they are FACT.Remember, FACTS leave zero room for POSSIBILITIES! Facts can typically be substanciated by science.My opinion? Scott is guilty! But it isnt FACT,its an opinion.
BrooklynOmerta 4 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Vikki prisoners do not "own" websites.
I have followed the Peterson case extensively, and agree with the judges ruling on the civil case. Have you read any court documents associated with this case? Evidence was withheld. Read the motion filed by Scott's defense (Motion for a new trial). Delucchi turned it down, but his reasoning was seriously flawed. Perhaps the judge in the civil case knows this?? Hmmm.
Nakefish 3 years ago